Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/shallidrink01croo 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


BY 

JOSEPH  HENRY  CROOKER 

Author  of  The  Church  of  Today,  The  Church  of  Tomorrow, 
The  Supremacy  of  Jesus,  etc.,  etc. 


THE  PILGRIM  PRESS 

BOSTON  NEW  TORE  CHICAGO 


Copyright 

JOSEPH  HENRY  CROOKER 
1914 


THE  PILGRIM  PRESS 
BOSTON 


Dedicated 
to  the 

STUDENTS 
of  the 

University  of  Wisconsin 
and  the 

University  of  Michigan : 
among  those  of  former  years 
my  life-work  has  been  chiefly  done: 

Madison,  1881-1891 

Ann  Arbor,  1898-1905 


If  I were  a college  student,  I would  dedicate  myself,  without 
fanaticism,  but  with  firm  courage  and  flaming  enthusiasm,  to  the 
noble  cause  of  Total  Abstinence,  in  order  to  stop  the  use  of  Drink, 
which  has  been  the  great  curse  to  the  human  family. 


[iii] 


AN  ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The  author  and  the  publisher  of  this  book  extend 
their  most  cordial  thanks  to  Miss  Cora  Frances  Stod- 
dard, secretary  of  the  Scientific  Temperance  Federation, 
for  permission  to  use  the  valuable  copyrighted  charts 
which  are  presented  in  these  pages.  In  this  connection, 
it  should  also  be  stated  that  the  important  facts  which 
they  so  clearly  illustrate,  and  many  others  of  a similar 
character,  are  graphically  set  forth  in  a series  of  Fifty 
Posters,  in  two  colors,  24  by  38  inches,  just  issued  by 
the  Federation  (23  Trull  Street,  Boston,  Mass.),  for 
use  in  stores,  schools,  libraries,  churches,  and  on  build- 
ings and  billboards. 


[v] 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  The  Drink  Superstition:  Ancient  Ori- 
gin AND  Present  Operation  ...  1 

II.  A Question  of  Proportion  ....  27 

III.  The  Roots  of  Crime  and  Poverty  . 55 

IV.  A Business  Proposition 77 

V.  Parental  Responsibilities  ....  97 

VI.  Applied  Psychology 121 

VII.  The  Discipline  that  Destroys  143 

VIII.  The  Cure  that  Kills 161 

IX.  The  Function  of  Law 181 

X.  Signs  of  Promise 217 


[vii] 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


FACING 
PAGE 

Walking  Match 1 

Alcohol  and  the  Brain 19 

Alcohol  and  Tuberculous  Patients  ....  27 

Assaults  and  Efficiency 55 

Alcohol  and  Social  Welfare 60 

Drink  Does  Its  Worst 72 

Employers  Who  Prefer  Non-Alcoholized  Work- 
men   77 

Alcohol  and  Degeneracy 84 

Mortality  of  Children 97 

Scholarship  of  Abstaining  and  Drinking  Chil- 
dren   114 

On  Memory 121 

How  Long  May  a Man  Expect  to  Live?  . . . 143 

Pneumonia 161 

Typesetting 181 

Comparative  Sickness 217 

Marksmanship 233 


[ix] 


“The  fact  that  our  impressions  under  alcohol  are  false  and  decep- 
tive is  of  very  great  importance  to  us  in  endeavoring  to  understand 
how  a substance  which  paralyzes  like  alchohol  can  also  apparently 
‘stimulate,’  and  so  gradually  lead  to  the  habit  of  taking  it  for  succes- 
sive stimulations.” — Alcohol  and  the  Human  Body,  Fourth  Edition, 
page  82,  1911.  By  Sir  Victor  Horsley,  M.  D.,  and  Mary  D.  Sturge, 
M.  D. 

“The  tradition  that  alcohol  was  a stimulant  and  tonic  and  pos- 
sessed some  power  to  give  new  force  and  vigor  to  the  cells  and  func- 
tional activity  is  a thing  of  the  past.  Studies  of  exact  science  in  the 
laboratory  show  that  alcohol  is  a depressant,  anesthetic  and  narcotic; 
also  that  its  first  effects  on  the  sensory  centers  are  to  diminish  then- 
acuteness  and  pervert  their  activity.  In  this  way  they  delude  the 
victim  with  a consciousness  of  vigor  and  strength  that  is  contradicted 
when  tested  by  instruments.  The  first  effect  of  alcohol,  increasing 
the  heart’s  action  and  sending  the  blood  to  the  brain  with  greater 
velocity,  is  simply  irritation,  preceding  the  anesthesia  and  diminu- 
tion of  power,  which  follows.  The  patient  is  deceived.  His  con- 
sciousness of  mental  clearness  and  strength  is  unverifiable,  and  j’et 
he  does  not  know  it.” — Dr.  T.  D.  Crothers,  Walnut  Lodge  Hospital, 
Hartford. 

“The  idea  that  alcohol  stimulates  mental  effort  and  produces 
facility  of  expression  is  rapidly  disappearing.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
a single  brilliant  thought  or  poetic  or  elegant  expression  has  ever 
owed  its  origin  to  alcohol  in  any  form.  It  is  true  that  alcohol  seems 
to  take  the  bridle  off  the  tongue  and  give  free  rein  to  conversation, 
but  this  effect  is  produced  by  a paralyzing  influence  on  the  sense  of 
responsibility  rather  than  a stimulating  influence  upon  the  general 
flow  of  ideas.” — Dr.  Harvey  N.  Wiley,  formerly  Chief  of  U.  S.  Bu- 
reau of  Chemistry. 

“From  the  recommendation  of  a wine-seller,  I learn  that  wine 
enlivens  the  imagination,  facilitates  thought-connection,  quickens 
the  imagination,  is  favorable  to  the  clear  and  rapid  reception  of  im- 
pressions, and  to  the  formation  of  judgments.  Etery  word  a lie! 
Careful  investigation,  continued  for  decades  and  conducted  with  the 
finest  apparatus,  to  determine  the  psychical  effects  of  alcohol  has 
shown  beyond  peradventure  that  exactly  the  reverse  of  all  these  asser- 
tions is  actually  the  case.  Alcohol  paralyzes  the  imagination,  renders 
the  connection  of  ideas  more  difficult,  weakens  and  falsifies  the 
memory,  and  produces  a very  marked  derangement  of  the  powers  of 
apprehension  and  of  judgment.”  Prof.  Emil  Kraepelin,  Lniversity 
of  Munich. 


A 62 -Mile  Walking  Match 

Comparison  of  Abstainers  and  Non  - Abstainers 


'opyriglil  igio,  l)y  Scienlilic  Tcinpci aiicc  I'ciloralion,  IUksIou. 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION:  ANCIENT  ORI- 
GIN AND  PRESENT  OPERATION 

The  attentive  reader  of  Homer  is  keenly  impressed 
with  the  deep  religiousness  of  the  author  and  of  the  peo- 
ple whom  he  describes.  He  represents  gods  and  men  as 
intimately  associated  in  a common  life.  The  divine  be- 
ings watch  the  earth  inhabitants  with  great  solicitude, 
keeping  near  them  to  bless  or  to  punish.  What  we 
call  natural  phenomena,  plastic  to  the  touch  of  celestial 
wills,  were  constantly  shaped  to  foster  or  to  injure  the 
life  of  man.  The  gods  had  favorites  whom  they  pro- 
tected, while  there  were  others  whom  they  chastised. 

On  the  other  hand,  aU  human  beings  felt  the  imme- 
diate presence  of  the  gods.  They  could  say  with  a 
conviction  seldom  found  today:  In  them  we  live,  move, 
and  have  our  being.  The  consciousness  of  divine  pro- 
tection and  guidance,  with  impending  punishment  for 
disobedience,  was  clear  and  constant.  In  it  were  found 
the  sanctions  of  morality,  the  sources  of  heroism,  the 
springs  of  daily  conduct. 

This  ancient  belief  in  the  close  association  of  gods 
and  men  in  a common  life  found,  however,  expression 
in  many  actions  which  seem  to  us  both  irrational  and 
irreligious.  Of  these,  the  most  foreign  to  modern 
ideas  was  the  elaborate  system  of  sacrifice.  Slaugh- 
tered animals  were  burned  with  painstaking  ceremo- 
nials upon  innumerable  altars,  which  were  regarded  as 
the  most  sacred  meeting  places  between  man  and  his 

[1] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


god.  Then  and  there  the  divine  presence  was  most 
immediate  and  awful.  Oaths  there  uttered  and  con- 
tracts there  made  were  supremely  binding,  having  the 
invisible  but  powerful  deity  as  witness,  who  would 
act  as  avenger  in  case  of  neglect. 

These  offerings  were  far  more  than  mere 
Feeding  presents  to  win  the  favor  of  a heavenly 
being,  as  the  subject  by  gifts  seeks  to  seciu’e 
the  friendship  of  an  earthly  despot.  Nor  were  they 
prompted  solely  by  the  sense  of  sin,  in  penitent  endeavor 
to  secure  pardon  for  wrong  doing.  Both  these  elements 
were  often  present;  but  the  chief  aim  in  early  times  was, 
in  this  way,  actually  to  nourish  and  sustain  the  very 
life  of  God,  and  so  by  reflex  action,  to  enlarge  and 
exalt  inan’s  life  also,  for  both  gods  and  men  participated 
in  a common  existence.  The  heavenly  being  really 
needed  the  earthly  food  so  presented  by  his  children 
at  the  altar,  which  was  in  truth  the  common  table 
where  the  life  of  both  was  enriched.  The  idea  of  sus- 
tenance was  prominent  in  sacrificial  worship. 

However  foolish  or  even  revolting  all  this  may  seem 
to  us,  it  was  a vital  con\dction  to  those  distant  peoples. 
They  were  doing  their  best,  for  this  was  their  conception 
of  the  universe  put  into  action.  Here  we  must  note  a 
most  important  fact,  that  prominent  among  their 
sacrificial  offerings  was  the  “libation,”  the  outpouring 
of  various  forms  of  alcoholic  liquors.  The  gods  had 
more  ethereal  beverages  in  their  heavenly  abode,  but 
earthly  wines  were  very  acceptable  and  helpful  to 
them.  If  the  gods  needed  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the 
animals  which  men  ate  as  food,  surely  they  also  needed 
the  wine  which  makes  glad  the  heart  of  man.  As  both 
heaven  and  earth  were  bound  up  in  a common  life, 
and  as  it  was  man’s  duty  to  sustain  the  life  of  his  god, 
what  he  himself  found  so  helpful,  banishing  weariness, 

[2] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


increasing  strength,  and  giving  joy — this  man  must 
offer  to  the  deity  whom  he  worshipped. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  wine  seemed 
Blessings  appropriate  gift  to  God.  Judging  by 

Apparent  appearances — and  this  was  the  only  way 

the  early  man  could  judge — wine  was  the 
supreme  life-giver.  Its  immediate  effects  are  appar- 
ently most  helpful  and  delightful:  a sense  of  warmth 
pervades  the  body;  a feeling  of  exhilaration  takes 
possession  of  the  whole  being,  fatigue  and  weariness 
being  banished;  the  tongue  is  loosened  and  speech 
becomes  rapid;  new  energies  seem  to  flow  through 
every  limb  and  every  sense  is  apparently  quickened; 
while  those  who  drink  feel  that  they  have  entered  a 
new  world,  whose  spacious  realms  they  traverse  as 
though  walking  on  air  and  whose  innumerable  treasures 
are  their  particular  property.  A feeling  of  great 
dignity  and  exaltation,  of  new  capacity,  of  increased 
importance  springs  up  within  them.  The  old  world 
with  its  cares,  tears,  and  vexations,  vanishes,  while 
all  things  become  new.  Deeds  are  done  without  effort, 
as  in  dreams.  All  this  is  only  “apparent,”  as  we 
fully  know  today,  but  it  was  real  to  them,  and  so  they 
called  liquor  a stimulant.  We,  however,  know  that  it 
is  not  a stimulant,  but  a depressant  and  paralyzer. 

Our  ancestors  very  naturally  thought  that  liquor, 
which  to  them  apparently  so  blesses  human  life,  must 
be  a most  precious  gift  to  every  celestial  being.  As  it 
produces  experiences  which  apparently  lift  men  up  to 
the  gods,  it  must  be  the  most  god-given  of  gifts,  which 
man,  in  turn,  with  deepest  gratitude,  must  present  to 
his  Maker.  Men  believed  that  by  intoxication  they 
became  filled  with  the  spirit  of  God.  Many  oriental 
cults  have  resorted  to  liquor  for  this  purpose. 

[3] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


About  this  belief  in  liquor  as  a life-giver,  operative  in 
the  sacrifieial  system,  grew  up  many  other  customs. 

I.  Its  use  became  the  medium  for  the  expression  of 
hospitality  among  men.  The  primitive  mind  very 
naturally  argued:  If  it  produces  friendship  between 
man  and  his  god,  certainly  it  is  the  most  appropriate 
means  for  expressing  and  cultivating  good-will  among 
men.  The  guest  must  obviously  be  given  what  is 
best.  The  greatest  distinction  that  could  be  bestowed 
upon  him  was  to  present  him  what  was  offered  to 
nourish  the  life  of  God,  what  would  most  increase  his 
ovv^n  life.  Therefore,  whenever  the  stranger  came, 
whenever  men  met  and  wished  to  display  friendly 
feelings,  the  cup  was  passed.  This  was  a verj”^  natmal 
application  of  their  thought  about  wine,  to  hmnan 
affairs,  extending  to  their  fellows  what  also  was  given 
to  God  in  worship.  The  modern  habit  of  “treating” 
may  in  this  way  be  easily  and  quickly  traced  to  its 
true  psychological  root. 

II.  For  similar  reasons,  liquor  came  to  be  used  in 
many  ceremonial  ways.  Great  undertakings,  solemn 
occasions,  and  sacred  events,  needed  the  witnessing 
presence  and  approval  of  some  deity.  This  associa- 
tion of  sanctity,  insuring  divine  sanction  and  human 
obligation,  must  be  secured  by  sacrifice.  A covenant 
between  men  must  be  sealed  by  bringing  God  near 
through  an  offering  of  wine:  that  which  sustains  life, 
human  and  divine.  Hence,  liquor  was  used  to  solem- 
nize compacts  between  individuals  and  tribes,  the  pass- 
ing of  the  cup  from  lip  to  lip  symbolizing  the  common 
obligation.  At  marriage,  birth,  and  death,  the  drink- 
ing of  liquor  seemed  the  proper  thing  to  do,  as  it  was 
pre-eminently  the  supreme  life-giver.  Here  is  the 
psychological  explanation  of  the  habit  of  drinking  one’s 
health  at  banquets;  also  of  the  custom  of  baptizing 

[4] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


the  bow  of  the  new  ship  with  wine,  a harmful  relic  of 
barbarism,  which  it  is  hoped,  some  sensible  president 
will  soon  abolish! 

III.  It  was  probably  later  that  the  specifically 
hygienic  uses  of  liquor  came  into  prominence.  As  a 
“life-giver,”  it  has  been  universally,  and  is  still  com- 
monly, used  for  medicinal  purposes,  resort  being  made 
to  it  to  cure  all  diseases,  real  and  imaginary.  What- 
ever the  ailment,  the  patient  must  be  given  some 
“toddy.”  At  the  animistic  stage  of  human  culture, 
when  every  form  of  sickness  was  attributed  to  the 
invasion  of  the  body  by  evil  spirits,  very  naturally 
constant  use  was  made  of  the  master  “spirit”  residing 
in  liquors,  in  order  to  drive  out  those  demons  of  disease. 
Even  the  name  “spirits,”  by  which  alcohol  is  known, 
carries  us  back  to  this  ancient  state  of  mind. 

Resort  was  also  made  to  liquor  to  prepare  one  to 
resist  cold  or  heat.  Before  beginning  any  great  exer- 
tion or  undertaking  any  serous  enterprise,  men  felt 
that  they  must  re-enforce  themselves  by  using  some 
kind  of  drink.  All  this  was,  indeed,  wise,  if  liquor  is 
really  a life-giver.  And  undoubtedly,  the  early  sacri- 
ficial uses  of  wine,  and  its  long  association  with  sacred 
rites  as  the  medium  of  worship  and  the  food  of  the 
gods  (consider  for  a moment,  in  passing,  how  the  poets 
even  in  recent  times  have  sung  its  praises — a great 
misfortune,  making  it  necessary  for  parents  to  disin- 
fect such  literature  before  placing  it  in  the  hands  of 
their  children),  did  much  to  inaugurate  and  sustain 
these  hygienic  practices  in  the  use  of  liquor,  which 
continue  long  after  the  psychological  conditions,  out 
of  which  they  sprang,  have  passed  away. 

With  these  considerations  in  mind,  a 
keen  observer  will  find  new  interest  while 
sitting  in  a hotel  lobby  and  watching  the 

[5] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


stream  of  men  who  pass  by  him  into  the  barroom. 
Leaving  out  of  account  a few  inebriates  in  a diseased 
condition,  “alcoholism,”  who  ought  to  be  under  re- 
straint and  treatment,  probably  it  is  true  that  a large 
majority  of  men  do  not  care  very  much  for  the  mere 
physical  taste  of  liquor,  so  that  appetite  plays  a sub- 
ordinate part  with  a majority  of  these  persons. 

By  watching  the  people  as  they  pass,  two  main  classes 
may  very  easily  be  distinguished. 

First,  those  who  drink  chiefly  for  hospitality  and 
fellowship.  The  use  of  liquor  with  them  is  mainly  a 
means  of  sociability.  Very  frequently  this  scene  is 
enacted:  Two  old  friends  meet  and  cordially  shake 
hands  and  begin  to  talk  of  old  times.  Soon  a third 
person  is  introduced  and  at  once  there  is  sufficient 
social  momentum  to  cause  one  of  the  party  to  suggest: 
“Let’s  take  something.”  So  off  they  go  to  the  bar. 
The  social  instinct  finds  vent  in  a long-established 
custom  of  drinking,  and  conversation  flows  freely 
with  the  liquor,  and  all  soon  separate  with  a sense  of 
satisfaction.  Mere  appetite  has  here  played  no  impor- 
tant part,  while  no  sinful  or  vicious  intent  has  been 
present — simply  a common  form  of  sociability,  sanc- 
tioned by  long  usage  and  rooted  in  ancient  beliefs 
associated  with  sacrificial  worship,  though  this  con- 
nection has  long  since  been  forgotten.  The  custom 
survives,  chiefly,  because  of  the  social  warmth  which 
finds  expression  in  it,  in  which  also  operates  the  desire 
to  give  a friend  something  that  will  nourish  his  life,  in 
the  belief  that  liquor  is  a great  life-giver — a “supersti- 
tion, ” and  a very  harmful  superstition,  but  still  unfor- 
tunately very  active  among  us. 

Second,  besides  these  small  social  groups  which 
adjourn  to  the  barroom  for  liquor,  there  is  a succession 
of  less  sociable  drinkers,  most  numerous  about  the  mid- 

[6] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


die  of  the  forenoon  and  the  afternoon.  These  are  the 
men  who  use  liquor  because  they  feel  that  they  need  a 
“bracer” — something,  as  they  say,  to  steady  their 
nerves,  to  remove  the  sense  of  goneness  in  the  stomach, 
and  to  put  vim  into  their  tired  muscles.  They  gen- 
erally drink  alone  and  quickly,  going  at  once  back  to 
their  work.  If  not  able  to  reach  a bar,  they  carry  a 
bottle.  Here,  too,  the  motive  is  generally  innocent 
and  the  mere  pleasure  of  the  palate  plays  a minor  part. 
They  will  tell  you  “that  they  do  not  care  for  the  taste 
of  the  stuff,  ” but  they  feel  that  they  cannot  get  along 
without  it. 

Whatever  morbid  craving  may  operate  here,  it  is 
not  a normal  demand  of  the  body,  but  the  mere  tyranny 
of  habit.  Like  any  established  routine  of  life,  whether 
necessary  or  merely  perfunctory,  when  the  periodic 
moment  arrives  the  demand  is  felt.  For  years  at  that 
hour,  these  men  have  been  in  the  habit  of  drinking; 
and  the  “habit”  Qiaheo,  “I  hold”)  asserts  itself.  The 
urgency  does  not  so  much  represent  a real  need  as  a 
superficial  routine  of  life.  The  body  has  been  accus- 
tomed to  this  “prod”  and  it  looks  for  it  when  the  hour 
arrives.  Moreover,  alcohol  belongs  to  the  “habit- 
forming” group  of  drugs,  like  opium,  that  tend  to 
weaken  the  will  and  produce  certain  abnormal  and 
vicious  demands,  which  enslave  both  body  and  mind. 

These  drinkers  feel  sure  that  they  need 
“bracer”  and  that  it  does  them  good. 

But  they  are  under  bonds  to  that  old  super- 
stition which  represents  liquor  as  a life-giver — a belief 
which  descends  to  us  from  the  ages  of  sacrificial  wor- 
ship and  which,  like  the  bloody  animal  sacrifice,  ought 
to  be  banished  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  What  we 
know  is  that  instead  of  making  the  nerves  strong  and 
stead}',  liquor  weakens  them  or  paralyzes  them.  In- 

[7] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


stead  of  feeding  the  body  like  a true  food,  it  merely 
deadens  the  sense  of  hunger,  as  ether  destroys  the 
consciousness  of  pain  without  removing  its  cause. 
Instead  of  adding  strength  to  the  wearied  muscles,  it 
makes  them  forget  that  they  are  weary,  as  a noise  in 
the  street  simply  diverts  attention  from  the  prattle  of 
the  child  at  the  knee  without  silencing  his  lips. 

Thus,  those  who  drink  because  they  feel  that  they 
need  a “bracer”  are  continually  self-decived.  They 
prod  their  bodies  as  the  driver  whips  his  horse,  but 
the  whip  adds  no  strength  to  the  horse  and  it  is  no 
adequate  substitute  for  oats.  Their  belief  and  practice 
represent  a superstition  as  baseless  as  the  superstition 
of  the  African  barbarian  who  thinks  that  his  sacrifice 
of  a pig  really  secured  his  good  crop.  The  line  of 
laborers  who  crowd  the  saloon  bar  at  the  close  of  the 
day  imagine  that  the  drinks  rest  them  and  make  it 
possible  for  them  to  work  more  easily  on  the  morrow. 
But  their  belief  is  as  erroneous  and  their  performance 
as  foolish  as  the  sacrificial  offerings  described  by 
Homer. 

In  fact,  these  modern  sacrifices  to  Bacchus  in  the 
saloon  are  in  many  ways  worse  than  the  ancient  animal 
sacrifices,  because  they  do  an  immense  amount  of  injury 
to  the  drinker,  to  his  family  and  friends,  to  the  state, 
and  to  his  descendants,  whereas  the  sacrificial  altars 
represented  little  more  than  a foolish  waste  of  effort 
and  treasure. 

The  following  statements  by  two  eminent 
Decide  doctors  are  exceedingly  interesting  and 
important  at  this  point,  because  the  real 
truth  of  the  matter  is  so  clearly  and  forcibly  set  forth 
by  them.  The  first  is  by  Dr.  W.  A.  Chappie,  M.  D.,  a 
member  of  the  British  Parliament,  who  asserted  at 
the  Imperial  Temperance  Conference,  London  (1911): 

[8] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


“Alcohol  paralyzes  the  functions  of  tissue  cells  in  direct  proportion 
to  the  quantity,  and  frequency  of  the  contact.  The  so-called  ‘stimu- 
lation’ of  alcohol  is  a misnomer.  This  phenomenon  immediately 
after  the  ingestion  of  alcohol  is  due  to  the  paralysis  of  the  vaso-motor 
centers  in  the  brain.  Because  these  cells  are  partially  paralyzed, 
they  cease  to  that  extent  to  perform  their  functions,  i.  e.,  they  loosen 
their  hold  on  the  muscular  walls  of  the  blood  vessels,  which  thereby 
lose  their  tone  and  contracted  condition,  dilate,  become  engorged 
with  blood,  and  thus  quicken  the  heart’s  action.  This  increased 
blood  supply  temporarily  increases  the  function  of  the  part  supplied. 
But  it  b primarily  a paralytic  action.  It  b evanescent,  and  only 
occupies  the  time  between  the  sudden  paralysis  of  the  vaso-motor 
centers  and  the  discovery  by  the  tissue  cells  of  the  deception.  I 
repeat,  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  every  action  of  alcohol  in  the 
body  is  an  action  on  tissue  cells,  and  is  paralytic  in  its  effect,  the  cells 
of  the  brain  suffering  in  the  inverse  order  of  their  development,  the 
last  developed  suffering  first  and  most,  the  first  developed  suffering 
last  and  least.’’ 

That  is,  liquor  injures  first  and  most  that  which  is 
best  and  highest  in  us, — a fact  which  explains  the 
frequent  remark:  He  is  such  a good  man  when  he  is 
not  drunk!  The  drink  first  attacks  the  good  in  us, 
and,  having  destroyed  that,  sets  the  animal  in  us  free. 
Dr.  Chappie  proceeds  with  this  remarkable  statement : 

“If  this  is  true,  why  do  not  all  believe  it?  For  two  reasons.  Be- 
cause alcohol  mocks  those  who  take  it,  and  enriches  those  who  make 
it.  Wine  is  a mocker.  It  promises  what  it  does  not  give.  It  gives 
one  and  takes  ten.  But  this  is  its  primary  deception.  Its  secondary 
deception  b the  crave  for  more  that  it  ultimately  engenders.  Like 
morphia,  it  creates  a craving  for  itself.  I need  not  dwell  on  this. 
It  is  due  partly  to  habit,  but  chiefly  to  the  degeneration  that  it  in- 
duces in  the  inhibiting  controlling  cells  of  the  brain.  People  do  not 
believe  the  truth  about  alcohol,  then,  because  they  are  deceived  by 
its  immediate  action  and  impelled  by  its  remote  action.  But  there 
is  another  reason  why  the  truth  is  suppressed.  Many  people  make 
a profit  in  the  use  of  alcohol.  The  man  who  becomes  rich  in  its  man- 

[9j 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


ufacture  or  sale  has  not  much  to  say  against  it  as  a rule.  There  is  a 
vested  interest  in  the  traflSc.  Those  who  profit  from  its  consumption 
by  others  seize  every  statement  in  its  favor  and  advertise  it  accord- 
ingly. I need  not  elaborate  this  point.  It  has  a wonderful  influence 
in  protecting  its  use  from  the  bright  glare  of  the  search-light  of  truth  ” 

The  second  testimony  respecting  the  influence  of 
alcohol  is  equally  important,  as  it  touches  the  custom 
of  drinking  in  order  to  banish  fatigue,  and  it  graphic- 
ally explains  why  that  habit  is  so  harmful.  These 
are  the  words  of  Dr.  W.  Pfaff,  a distinguished  physician 
of  Germany: 

“The  feeling  of  weariness  is  the  safety-valve  of  our  organism  which 
protects  it  from  over-exertion.  Whoever  deadens  this  feeling  is 
like  an  engineer  who  weighs  down  the  safety  valve  of  his  steam  engine 
in  order  to  get  more  work  out  of  it.  A well  built  machine  will  stand 
it  up  to  a certain  point,  but  it  is  not  made  better  by  such  a trial, 
while  every  repetition  reduces  its  power  of  resistance  until  it  is  no 
longer  equal  to  even  its  normal  working  power,  and  it  soon  goes  to 
pieces.  The  fact  that  after  a day  of  hard  exertion  a man  feels  his 
fatigue  less  in  the  evening,  after  taking  his  usual  ‘moderate’  though 
non-intoxicating  quantity  of  alcohol,  should  be  set  over  against  the 
fact  that  the  next  morning  on  arising  he  feels  more  fatigued  than 
when  he  went  to  bed,  and  furthermore,  tires  more  easily  during  his 
work  than  he  would  have  done  without  the  previous  evening’s  drink.’’ 

This  is  in  line  with  the  discoveries  of  scientific  re- 
search, which  show  us  that  while  the  actual  deception 
produced  in  the  drinker  is  immediate  (he  feels  at  once 
a sense  of  relief),  nevertheless  the  injurious  influence 
continues  for  many  hours,  though  the  amount  of  malt 
liquor  used  may  have  been  small. 

Our  very  talk  of  alcoholic  liquors  as 
Liquors  stimulants  is  wholly  misleading  and  mis- 

stimuiants  chicvous,  and  it  ought  to  be  stopped.  The 

use  of  the  word  is  unscientific,  and  it  per- 
petuates the  superstition  that  has  done  so  much  harm. 

[10] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


As  already  stated,  alcohol  is  a depressant,  a paralyzer, 
a destroyer.  And  yet,  so  recently  as  the  time  of  the 
great  English  physiologist.  Dr.  Wm.  B.  Carpenter,  we 
find  that  he,  though  an  earnest  total  abstainer,  con- 
stantly referred,  as  in  his  Physiology  of  Alcoholics 
(1883),  to  alcohol  as  a stimulant!  The  term,  as  applied 
to  liquor,  should  be  banished  from  common  speech. 
This  would  help  to  set  the  young  people  right  upon  a 
vital  question. 

Now,  the  growing  intelligence  and  conscience  of  the 
race  long  since  put  a stop  to  animal  sacrifice  as  a method 
of  influencing  providence  or  nourishing  the  life  of 
mankind.  And  surely,  it  is  high  time  that  this  asso- 
ciated superstition  respecting  Kquor,  that  it  is  a life- 
giver,  should  cease  to  afflict  our  race.  The  foaming 
cup  does  more  harm  than  the  bloody  altar.  The 
drinking  of  one’s  health  at  a banquet  is  just  as  much  a 
superstition  (except  the  fellowship  expressed  by  it)  as 
the  offering  of  a lamb  to  solemnize  a tribal  compact. 
The  line  of  laborers  in  the  saloon  at  sunset,  drinking 
beer,  represents  much  more  harm  than  all  the  Grecian 
sacrifices,  on  all  the  altars  about  ancient  Troy.  The 
man  who  drains  a whisky  bottle  acts  more  foolishly 
than  the  far-off  savage  who  sprinkled  the  blood  of  a 
bullock  before  his  door  to  keep  off  the  demons  of  disease. 

This  view  of  the  Drink  Habit,  as  closely  associated 
with  a foolish  and  harmful  superstition,  must  be  vig- 
orously pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  rising  genera- 
tion. Men  must  be  made  to  see  that  there  is  no  real 
need  for  liquor;  All  these  customs  come  down  to  us 
from  barbaric  times.  There  are  far  better  methods  for 
expressing  fellowship  and  sustaining  life.  The  theory 
of  the  universe  upon  which  such  uses  of  liquor  rest  is 
viciously  false.  The  practices  themselves,  besides 
being  superstitious,  are  positively  and  seriously  harmful. 

[11] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


It  took  many  centuries  and  gigantic 
mtakrnust  efforts  to  destroy  the  system  of  animal 
Stop  sacrifice.  The  vested  rights  of  priesthoods, 

the  impressive  ceremonials  enshrined  in 
sacred  associations,  and  the  hopes  and  fears  which 
surrounded  altar  and  temple:  all  these  influences  the 
prophets  of  spirituality  had  to  fight.  Only  by  the 
efforts  of  innumerable  martyrs  and  numberless  heroes 
was  the  victory  for  the  moral  ideal  won.  But  at  last 
the  waste  of  life  and  treasure,  the  revolting  streams  of 
blood,  the  low  and  false  views  of  God,  associated  with 
these  customs — all  these  have  come  to  an  end,  at  least 
in  Christian  lands. 

The  hour  has  struck  for  a great  battle  against  the  twin 
Superstition  of  Drink,  which  more  foolishly  misreads 
the  law  of  God  and  the  need  of  man;  which  wastes  in 
treasure  every  day  more  than  all  temple  sacrifices  ever 
cost  in  a generation;  and  which  presses  from  the  eyes  of 
women  and  children  a stream  of  tears  wider  than  the 
rivers  of  blood  which  flowed  from  the  world’s  altars, 
and  from  human  life  a wail  of  anguish  louder  than  the 
songs  of  all  the  temple  priesthoods  of  the  earth.  And 
in  this  present-day  battle  against  the  liquor  super- 
stition, born  of  the  same  ignorance  that  produced 
animal  sacrifice,  we  have  to  fight  vested  interests  of 
mammoth  proportions,  the  venerable  associations  of 
ancient  customs,  and  a hundred  mistaken  notions 
respecting  personal  rights  and  human  good. 


Absolutely 

Needless 


We  hear  a great  deal  of  talk  to  the  effect 
that  human  nature  craves  a stimulant. 
That  tired  nerves  need  an  anesthetic,  that 
the  wearied  mind  demands  diversion,  that  men  must 
have  some  social  excitement.  We  are  told  that  this 
always  has  been  the  case,  that  it  always  will  be  the 

[12] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


case;  and  therefore  liquor  is  a necessity  and  the  saloon 
an  inevitable  institution.  But  this  is  little  more  than 
careless  talk:  the  cant  of  intemperance! 

Human  nature  craves  a stimulant?  But  alcohol  is 
not  a stimulant,  being  instead  a paralyzer  and  depres- 
sant. Tired  nerves  need  soothing?  But  alcohol,  on 
the  whole,  irritates  and  disintegrates  nerve  tissues. 
The  wearied  mind  demands  diversion?  But  drinking 
does  more  to  deaden  than  to  recreate.  Men  must 
have  some  social  excitement?  Wholesome  pleasures 
are,  indeed,  necessary.  But  exhilaration  through 
Drink,  which  means  inhibition  of  spiritual  qualities  and 
disturbance  of  physical  functions,  is  bought  at  too  great 
a cost. 

The  fact  that  thousands  of  abstaining  British  soldiers 
and  sailors  lead  a very  jolly  life,  that  abstainers  live 
longer  than  drinkers,  that  men  who  do  not  drink,  as  a 
rule,  have  fewer  tears  and  brighter  homes,  that  socia- 
bility of  the  warmest  and  keenest  character  is  now 
everywhere  maintained  without  liquors, — these  and 
similar  facts  disprove  the  claim  that  alcohol  is  a social 
necessity.  Craving  for  it  is  abnormal  and  use  of  it 
makes  human  life  increasingly  abnormal.  When  the 
superstition  that  liquor  is  a life-giver  is  destroyed,  then 
higher  forms  of  enjoyment  will  appear. 

Numerous  and  decisive  physiological  and 
Science  psychological  experiments  and  investiga- 
tions, carried  on  especially  in  the  past 
twenty  years,  have  proved  that  alcohol  is  not  a life- 
giver,  but  a life-destroyer.  The  researches  of  the 
world’s  greatest  scientists  all  point  in  one  direction 
The  facts  which  they  present  are  numerous  and  con- 
clusive. Some  of  these  facts  will  be  presented  in  later 
chapters  of  this  book.  It  remains  to  give  here  a few 

[13] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


illustrative  examples  and  testimonies  respecting  the 
general  truth. 

A very  important  aspect  of  this  subject  has  been 
presented  by  an  eminent  medical  authority  of  Great 
Britain,  Dr.  Edward  Vipont  Brown,  in  his  treatise  on 
the  Medical  Aspects  of  the  Temperance  Question. 
These  are  his  words : 

“The  Physiologist  has  always  laid  great  stress  upon  what  he  calls 
‘inhibition.’  The  word,  inhibition,  means  restraint.  It  is  the  brake 
that  you  put  on  your  bicycle  to  prevent  its  running  away  with  you 
down  hiU.  Without  this  power  of  inhibition,  we  should  all  be  mere 
creatures  of  impulse  and  slaves  of  passion.  Indeed,  it  is  the  high 
development  of  this  power  of  inhibition  which,  more  than  anything 
else,  distinguishes  the  civilized  man  from  the  savage.  Now  this 
power  of  inhibition,  which  has  only  been  developed  by  a long  and 
painful  process  of  education  and  culture,  is  weakened  under  the 
influence  of  alcohol.  And  this  is  why  the  modest  and  reticent  man 
becomes,  under  the  influence  of  alcohol,  pushing,  offensive,  and 
loquacious.  It  is  not  that  the  alcohol  has  stimulated  his  brain.  It 
is  that  it  has  paralyzed  his  power  of  self-control.  And  because  it  is 
the  result  of  paralysis  and  not  stimulation,  his  judgment  is  impaired, 
his  -will  power  weakened,  and  his  self-control  diminished.  His  dis- 
cretion also  is  impaired,  and  thus  the  alcoholic  is  often  given  credit 
for  ‘Dutch  Courage.’  Several  years  ago  a very  amateur  climber  in 
the  Alps  told  a friend  of  his  that  whenever  he  had  a crevasse  to  jump, 
he  always  took  a nip  of  spirits  and  then  jumped  like  a bird.  “You 
should  say  rather,’  answered  his  more  experienced  friend,  flike  a fool.’ 
Those  faculties  which  are  the  last  acquisition  of  culture  and  refine- 
ment are  always  the  first  to  go.  Thus  the  power  of  fine  discrimina- 
tion is  soon  lost  and  the  connoisseur  becomes  highly  appreciative  of 
bad  music,  poor  art,  weak  jokes,  and  fatuous  literature.  Espe- 
cially does  he  appreciate  himself  and  his  own  doings,  and  he  thus 
becomes  egoistic  and  self-assertive.  And  that  all  this  is  the  result 
of  paralysis,  and  not  the  result  of  stimulation  has  been  proved  by 
numberless  experiments  which  have  been  tried,  chiefly  in  the  psycho- 
logical laboratories  of  Germany  and  America.’’ 

[14] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


The  worst  thing  about  the  use  of  liquor,  as  has  been 
stated,  is  this  very  fact  that  the  sense  of  relief  from 
fatigue  and  the  feeling  of  increased  vigor  of  mind  are 
false  reports.  The  discoveries  of  Overton  and  Meyer 
(some  dozen  years  ago)  respecting  the  destructive 
action  of  alcohol  upon  the  lipoids  (the  fatty  substances 
sheathing  the  tissues  of  the  body),  help  us  to  under- 
stand why  liquor  deranges  the  whole  “intelligence 
system”  of  the  human  body,  giving  rise  to  the  decep- 
tions just  noted.  If  the  insulating  covering  of  the 
power  cable  be  stripped  off  down  the  line,  so  as  to  cause 
a leak  of  electric  energy,  the  indicator  in  thepower-house 
would  show  that  much  power  was  being  used,  and  the 
inference  would  be  natural  that  cars  were  running 
rapidly,  whereas  they  were  actually  stalled.  In  similar 
fashion  the  drinker  is  deceived. 

Another  crude  illustration  of  what  happens  is  found 
in  the  remark  of  the  old  sailor  who  told  the  young  man 
to  stop  drinking  just  before  the  two  balls  hanging  across 
the  room  looked  like  three.  Whereat  the  young  man 
replied  that  he  himself  better  stop  at  once,  for  he  was 
now  seeing  two  where  there  was  really  only  one!  Just 
this  deception  produced  by  drink  accounts  for  the 
practice  of  Australian  wool-growers  who  induce  buyers 
to  drink  heavily  before  making  their  purchases,  knowing 
that  in  the  condition  so  produced  their  wools  would 
seem  finer.  This  very  deception  is  at  the  bottom  of 
the  ancient  superstition,  which  still  persists,  that 
liquor  is  a life-giver,  or  as  the  great  specialist  respecting 
diseases  of  the  mind.  Sir  Thomas  S.  Clouston,  M.  D. 
(long  at  the  head  of  the  great  Insane  Asylum  in  Edin- 
burgh), puts  it:  “From  the  medical  and  scientific 
point  of  view,  we  have  this  great  physiological  fact 
before  us,  that  the  first  thing  alcohol  does  in  99  cases 

[15] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


out  of  100  is  to  affect  the  mental  working  of  the  brain 
of  the  man  who  imbibes.” 

Even  in  Russia,  a land  so  cursed  with  drink,  these 
conclusions  are  accepted  by  its  scientists  (Com- 
mission d’Alcoolisme,  1900):  “Alcohol  diminishes  the 
rapidity  of  thought,  makes  the  imagination  and  power 
of  reflection  commonplace  and  deprived  of  originality; 
acts  upon  fine  and  complex  sensations  by  transform- 
ing them  into  coarse  and  elementary  ones;  provokes 
outbursts  of  eAul  passions  and  dispositions;  and  in  this 
way  predisposes  men  to  strife  and  crime  and  upsets 
habits  of  work  and  perseverance!”  To  this  may  be 
added  the  conclusion  of  Prof.  John  J.  Abel,  as  given 
in  The  Physiological  Aspects  of  The  Liquor  Problem 
(Vol.  II.  p.  165,  1903):  “We  have  seen  that  alcohol 
from  the  very  first  has  a depressant  action  for  higher 
mental  functions.  ” Also,  these  words  by  Sir  Thomas 
Barlow,  M.  D.  (who  recently  presided  at  the  Inter- 
national Medical  Congress,  London,  1913):  “It  is  at 
all  events  fairly  certain  that  the  capacity  for  the 
performance  of  fine  movements  which  depends  upon 
the  maintenance  of  both  driving  power  and  conduct- 
ing power,  is  lessened  by  the  use  of  liquor.” 

In  his  Norman  Kerr  Memorial  Lecture, 
Roveda  given  November  11,  1911,  Dr.  G.  Sims 

Deceiver  Woodhead,  Professor  in  the  University  of 

Cambridge,  gave  the  results  of  some  origi- 
nal and  very  delicate  experiments  upon  himseK  respect- 
ing “The  Action  of  Alcohol  on  Body  Temperature,” 
which  strikingly  confirm  the  statements  just  made. 
He  equipped  himself  vdth  apparatus  that  would  give  a 
continuous  record  of  surface  and  internal  temperature 
(the  latter  taken  through  the  rectum).  He  writes: 
“The  alcohol  (a  very  small  quantity)  was  sipped  slowly. 
Almost  immediately  I experienced  a sense  of  warmth 

[ 161 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


and  glow  both  in  the  stomach  and  in  the  skin,  which 
later  became  moist.  The  face  felt  a little  flushed. 
From  my  general  sensation  I was  satisfied  that  both 
external  and  internal  temperatures  had  risen  con- 
siderably. ” 

However,  after  a night’s  sleep,  when  he  examined 
the  record,  what  he  found  was  this : While  the  surface 
temperature  rose  for  a short  time,  there  was  later  a 
permanent  fall  and  the  internal  temperature  fell  from 
the  start.  To  quote  his  own  words  (The  Action  of 
Alcohol  on  Body  Temperature,  p.  13,  1912):  “On 
developing  the  record  given  by  the  internal  thermometer 
I found,  however,  that  my  sensations  had  misled  me  com- 
pletely, and  that,  instead  of  a rise,  there  had  been  a 
distinct  initial  fall.”  The  apparent  warmth  was,  on 
the  whole,  a deception.  The  effect  of  the  alcohol  was 
to  force  blood  to  the  surface,  where  it  was  cooled,  so 
that  while  the  surplus  of  blood  in  the  external  tissues 
gave  a temporary  feeling  of  warmth,  the  body  as  a 
whole  was  robbed  of  heat — a fact  which  was  not  re- 
ported owing  to  the  deranged  condition  of  the  system 
due  to  alcohol.  Forty  years  ago.  Sir  Benjamin  Ward 
Richardson,  M.  D.,  made  similar  discoveries,  but  even 
the  world  of  medical  science  was  long  indifferent  or 
incredulous ! 

In  these  experiments.  Professor  Woodhead  was  simply 
confirming  a well-known  conclusion  of  science,  that 
alcohol,  instead  of  permanently  warming,  really  cools 
the  body.  This  is  why  drinking  liquor  is  so  dangerous 
before  exposure  to  cold  and  this  is  why  polar  explorers 
both  north  and  south  use  no  alcohol.  It  is  equally 
harmful  even  in  warm  weather.  But  the  point  of 
chief  significance,  needing  special  emphasis,  is  this: 
the  fact  that  he,  a trained  scientist,  was  deceived 

[17] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


respecting  his  ov/n  condition.  He  felt  that  he  was 
warmer,  when  in  truth  his  body  was  losing  its  heat. 
Nothing  could  better  illustrate  and  demonstrate  the 
real  effect  of  alcohol  upon  the  human  system:  It 
deceives  the  user.  It  so  deranges  the  system  that  the 
reports  given  are  false.  The  drinker  thinks  that  he  is 
stronger,  warmer,  wiser,  whereas  the  exact  opposite  is 
the  fact.  Liquor  always  lies  to  the  user,  making  him 
think  that  it  is  a life-giver  when  it  is  a life-destroyer. 
Just  here  is  the  root  of  the  ancient  superstition  which 
we  are  considering. 

Professor  Woodhead,  in  an  address  given  at  Bristol, 
England,  March  14,  1911,  touched  upon  another 
phase  of  the  general  subject  in  these  words: 

“The  doctors  of  the  present  day  can  help  men  very  greatly  by 
pointing  out  to  them  that  if  they  are  taking  alcoholic  liquors  in  order, 
as  they  may  think,  to  strengthen  themselves,  they  are  doing  an 
exceedingly  wasteful  thing,  they  are  using  as  food,  substances  which 
contain  very  little  food  material.  They  say:  ‘Yes,  but  alcohol  can 
be  oxidised  in  the  body.’  Yes,  it  can  be  oxidised  in  the  body,  but 
it  is  a curious  thing  that  it  can  only  be  oxidised  to  advantage  when 
no  other  food  is  being  taken  and  no  other  work  is  being  done.  Can 
any  sane  man,  with  those  conditions,  say  that  it  is  a substance  which 
is  useful  to  a working  man?  He  does  not  want  to  stay  in  bed  or  to 
starve  to  make  use  of  the  alcohol  which  he  takes.  He  assumes  that 
he  is  taking  something  that  is  helping  him,  but  as  a matter  of  fact  he 
is  taking  something  that  is  clogging  every  part  of  the  machinery  of 
his  body,  and  taking  something  that  is  poisoning  the  most  delicate 
tissues  of  his  body,  taking  something  useless  as  a food  except  under 
most  extraordinary  conditions.  In  doing  that  he  is  depriving  himself 
of  good,  solid,  sound  food,  and  depriving  his  children,  because  he 
is,  by  using  this  waste  material, — depriving  them  of  warm  shoes, 
clothing,  education,  house  room,  and  all  things  essential  for  the 
building  up  of  the  child,  in  order  that  it  may  become  a useful  man 


or  woman. 


[18] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


There  is  another  phase  of  this  subject 
Paralyzes  which  must  be  mentioned.  It  is  of  very 

higher  • i • i • i 

Faculties  great  importance,  but  it  can  be  given  here 
only  slight  attention.  Brief  allusion  has 
already  been  made  to  it.  A serious  part  of  the  general 
effect  of  alcohol  upon  brain  and  mind  is  that  it  inhibits 
or  paralyzes  the  higher  faculties,  which  are  the  later 
products  of  evolution,  and  therefore  more  easily  in- 
fluenced. The  brain  centers  associated  with  our  more 
animal  life  are  older  and  more  hardy,  with  greater  power 
of  resistance.  Those  associated  with  our  more  human 
qualities,  such  as  modesty,  discretion,  and  moral  feel- 
ings, are  newer,  less  resolute,  and  more  susceptible  to 
derangement.  As  a result,  when  alcohol  is  taken  into 
the  system  its  destructive  power  is  first  felt  by  those 
higher  nerve  centers.  The  restraining  influences  of 
good  manners  and  good  morals  are  swept  aside  or 
inhibited.  And  left  without  these  checks  and  balances, 
the  merely  animal  impulses  come  to  mastery,  so  that 
a man  in  his  cups  becomes  boastful,  obscene,  beastly. 
He  does  things  for  which  he  has  to  apologize  the  next 
day. 

Intoxication  is,  therefore,  not  increase  of  life,  but 
putting  the  xeins  into  the  hands  of  the  animal  within 
us.  Liquor  changes  the  character  by  paralyzing  the 
best  and  highest  in  us.  It  puts  the  real  man  to  sleep. 
He  is  not  there.  This  inhibition  produced  by  alcohol 
is  what  makes  its  use  so  harmful  and  dangerous.  It 
tends  to  strike  down  all  the  finer  products  of  culture 
and  civilization.  It  is  more  than  merely  a life-destroyer, 
for  it  destroys  the  higher  life  and  puts  the  spirit  in 
subjection  to  what  is  brutish.  Therefore,  we  deal  here, 
not  only  with  a superstition  that  is  false,  but  with  a 
superstition  that  is  deadly. 

119] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


The  experiment  by  Professor  Wood  head, 
i^^peiin  which  reference  has  just  been  made,  is 

Discovered  Only  One  of  the  most  recent  demonstrations 
of  the  great  discovery,  which  is  the  outcome 
of  scientific  researches,  carried  on  with  great  care  for 
the  past  score  of  years.  And  among  these  investiga- 
tions, none  have  been  more  illuminating  than  those 
conducted  by  Prof.  Emil  Kraepelin  of  the  University 
of  Munich,  formerly  at  Heidelberg.  It  is  important 
to  keep  in  mind  that  his  experiments  were  made  with 
small  amounts  of  alcohol, — too  small  to  produce  intoxi- 
cation; what  would  be  called  very  moderate  drinking. 
Also,  it  is  w'ell  to  remember  that  these  researches  were 
conducted  by  several  persons  to  avoid  mistakes,  and 
similar  experiments  have  since  been  frequently  repeated 
by  other  scientists,  so  that  there  can  be  no  possible 
doubt  respecting  the  truth  of  the  general  conclusions 
reached. 

Professor  Kraepelin  experimented  upon  various  per- 
sons, beside  himself,  both  before  and  after  taking  small 
amounts  of  liquor,  in  order  to  test,  among  other  things, 
the  comparative  ability  to  memorize,  to  add  figures, 
and  to  respond  to  signals.  His  findings  may  be  briefly 
described  as  follows: 

(1)  In  many  cases,  there  was  at  first  a slight 
quickening  of  the  more  common,  or  automatic,  activ- 
ities of  the  mind,  a fact  which  partly  explains  why 
the  drinker  thinks  that  liquor  makes  him  brighter 
and  stronger. 

(2)  However,  in  a very  short  time,  there  was  a 
decided  deterioration  in  mental  work,  both  in  quality 
and  in  speed.  More  mistakes  were  make;  it  took  longer 
to  commit  words;  while  problems  were  not  so  quickly 
or  so  accurately  solved. 

(3)  It  was  shown  that  the  higher  activities  of  the 

[20] 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


mind  are  affected  at  once,  while  the  destructive  effects 
upon  them  is  more  marked  and  lasting.  In  this  way 
alcohol  upsets  the  normal  balance  of  our  intellectual 
life.  Inferior  kinds  of  mental  operation  come  to  the 
front  and  dominate,  and  even  the  higher  faculties 
produce  under  its  influence  a lower  quality  of  work. 
In  brief,  alcohol  deteriorates  the  mind  as  a whole,  but 
more  especially  that  which  is  highest  in  our  intellectual 
life, — a fact  that  has  already  been  noted.  Creative 
processes  are  more  quickly  injured  and  more  decisively 
harmed. 

(4)  The  destructive  influence  of  small  amounts  of 
drink  continues  to  be  felt  for  many  hours.  The  injuri- 
ous effect  of  a glass  of  beer  often  lasts  for  a whole  day, 
making  the  senses  less  acute,  the  reason  less  vigorous, 
and  the  will  less  decisive.  Some  critics  have  objected 
that  an  element  of  error,  due  to  “suggestion,”  has  not 
been  eliminated  from  these  experiments.  But  this 
criticism  is  fully  met  in  such  cases  as  those  of  Professors 
Kraepelin  and  Woodhead  by  the  fact  that  their  own 
impressions  were  contrary  to  the  records  themselves. 

Among  the  early  experiments  was  one  which  Professor 
Kraepelin  tried  upon  himself,  while  he  was  still  a mod- 
erate drinker.  And  it  was  the  result  of  this  experiment 
which  made  him  an  abstainer  and  deepened  his  interest 
in  temperance.  He  arranged  a delicate  apparatus, 
measuring  the  “time  reaction,”  as  it  is  called;  The 
interval  that  elapses  between  sight  of  a flash  and  the 
finger’s  pressure  of  a button,  by  which  a mark  is  made 
on  a revolving  cylinder.  Of  course,  the  more  alert 
the  mind,  the  more  quickly  the  finger  presses  the  button 
after  the  flash  is  seen.  Therefore,  the  closer  together 
the  marks  are  on  the  cylinder  the  more  active  the  mind 
and  body  are  shown  to  be. 

[21] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Deceives 

and 

Destroys 


During  this  epoch-making  experiment, 
after  having  taken  a small  amount  of  alcohol, 
Professor  Kraepelin  himself  felt  sure  that  he 
was  responding  to  the  flashes  more  quickly 
than  before  drinking.  That  is,  that  the  alcohol  had 
really  stimulated  him,  giving  him  new  Ufe.  But 
when  he  looked  at  the  record,  it  revealed  his  mistake. 
He  had  been  deceived.  He  had  been  working  slower 
rather  than  faster.  Reference  has  recently  been  made 
to  this  misleading  effect  of  alcohol  in  an  editorial  in 
American  Medicine  (July  1913,  p.  460):  “It  is  fre- 
quently diflScult  to  persuade  the  subject  of  the  experi- 
ment that  he  is  really  doing  less  work  under  alcoholic 
influence,  so  extraordinary  is  the  masking  effect  of  this 
agent.” 

Here  then  is  a verifiable,  fundamental  principle  of 
human  life,  which  cannot  be  brushed  aside  or  success- 
fully disputed.  We  may  ignore  it  or  live  in  violation 
of  it.  But  it  forever  operates,  like  the  force  of  gravity. 
That  principle,  as  already  stated,  is  this:  Alcohol  is 
not  a life-giver  but  a life-destroyer.  The  menace  of  it 
lies  in  the  fact  that  it  makes  the  user  think  that  it  is 
giving  him  more  strength,  whereas  it  brings  him  an 
element  of  death.  It  is  all  the  more  dangerous  because 
it  brings  him  death  masked  as  a friend! 

Another  element  in  this  superstition  is 
the  popular  impression  that  the  Drink 
Habit  is  inevitable,  a necessarj’-  evil  like  the 
diseases  due  to  climate.  WTien,  however,  we  destroy 
the  superstition  that  sustains  the  saloon,  the  evil 
custom  will  vanish,  as  persecution  of  witches  ceased 
when  reason  swept  aside  the  delusion  of  witchcraft. 
The  gigantic  efforts  now  made  to  keep  the  superstition 
alive  show  that  the  evil  habit  is  not  so  much  based  upon 
inherent  need  as  upon  a false  notion:  not  so  much 

[22] 


It  is  not 
Inevitable 


THE  DRINK  SUPERSTITION 


upon  the  cravings  of  appetite  as  upon  superstitious 
customs  viciously  manipulated  by  greed. 

It  is  also  a superstition  to  hold  that  the  use  of  light 
malt  beverages  will  stop  the  use  of  strong  drink.  It 
is  nowhere  true  in  the  wide  world  that  light  liquors 
have  driven  out  the  use  of  the  stronger  liquors.  It  is 
true,  however,  that  the  frequent  drinking  of  a mild 
liquor  is  more  harmful  than  an  occasional  spree.  No 
substitute  for  the  saloon  is  needed.  What  is  needed, 
however,  is  to  substitute  modern  science  for  the  ancient 
superstition,  and  wholesome  amusements  for  injurious 
dissipation. 

It  is  an  encouraging  sign  that  laborers  themselves 
begin  to  realize  that  the  Drink  Habit  is  based  upon  a 
ruinous  superstition.  The  following  words  are  taken 
from  an  article  recently  published  in  Vorwaerts,  the 
great  socialistic  journal  of  Berlin: 

"We  are  not  attacking  the  excessive  drinker  alone.  We  demand 
the  most  complete  abstinence.  That  is  a much  greater  object,  and 
at  the  same  time  much  easier  to  attain;  for,  with  the  great  majority 
of  workers  the  desire  for  alcohol  has  not  yet  become  a disease. 
Alcohol  is  no  food.  The  desire  for  alcohol  is  only  a bad  habit  that 
can,  when  its  evils  are  recognized,  be  broken.” 


The  ancient  superstition  is  still  wide-spread 
D^iSSess  doing  vast  injury,  especially  to 

but  Drinking  the  young,  but  public  opinion  is  fast  turning 
toward  the  position  that  the  the  evil  lies 
chiefly,  not  in  drunkenness,  but  in  drinking.  It  is 
seen,  for  one  thing,  that  if  there  were  no  drinking,  there 
would  be  no  drunkenness.  It  is  also  clearly  realized 
by  an  ever-increasing  number,  that  crime,  pauperism, 
and  insanity  are  produced  not  by  a few  drunkards,  but 
by  the  common  habit  of  drinking.  What  supports 
the  saloon,  the  foul  source  of  numberless  ills  and  woes, 

[23] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


are  not  the  few  drunkards  but  the  many  drinkers. 
What  imposes  poverty  upon  women  and  robs  chil- 
dren of  blessings,  is  not,  as  a rule,  drunkenness  but 
drinking.  We  are  coming  to  see  clearly  that  there 
can  be  no  wise  moderation  in  the  use  of  what  is  wholly 
and  always  injurious.  All  use  of  a cell-poison  is  abuse. 
The  real  danger  lies,  not  in  the  third  glass,  but  in  the 
first.  The  railroads  do  not  say  to  their  men;  “You 
must  keep  free  from  intoxication,”  but  they  do  com- 
mand: “You  must  not  drink  at  all.  ” The  trainer  of 
athletes  does  not  tell  his  men:  “You  must  refrain 
from  drunkenness;”  but  he  does  lay  down  the  stringent 
rule;  “You  must  wholly  abstain.”  For  every  real 
drunkard  there  are  scores  of  drinkers,  who  feel  sure  that 
they  never  took  a drop  too  much,  never  having  been 
intoxicated,  and  yet  they  have  lessened  their  industrial 
capacity,  exposed  themselves  to  disease,  cut  down  their 
chance  of  recovery  when  sick,  and  multiplied  mistakesand 
accidents  by  their  so-called  “moderate”  use  of  liquor. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  we  must  teach  with  increasing 
vigor  that  the  evil  lies,  not  chiefly  in  drunkenness,  but 
in  drinking.  This  truth  cannot  be  too  often  or  too 
emphatically  repeated.  We  must  make  the  “ moderate  ” 
drinker  realize  that  he  is  doing  himself  great  injury, 
and  bringing  serious  evils  upon  his  neighbors.  And, 
above  all,  we  must  visit  condemnation  and  disgrace, 
not  simply  upon  the  few  inebriates,  but  upon  all  drink- 
ers. The  Drink  Superstition  must  be  destroyed  by 
the  creative  influence  of  education  and  the  restraining 
power  of  law.  It  must  always  be  remembered  that 
the  temperance  apostle  of  today  fights,  not  merely  a 
morbid  appetite,  but  a gigantic  greed,  carefully  organ- 
ized and  skilfully  led.  High  courage,  great  wisdom, 
and  noble  enthusiasm  are  needed  in  this  warfare  for 
the  good  of  humanity. 


[24] 


“Alcoholic  indulgence  stands  almost,  if  not  altogether,  in  the  front 
rank  of  the  enemies  to  be  combated  in  the  battle  for  health.”  Prof. 
William  T.  Sedgwick.  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology. 

“If  there  is  one  curse  more  than  any  other  to  which  our  people  are 
subject  and  which  seems  to  have  fallen  upon  us  from  time  immemo- 
rial, it  is  the  curse  of  drink.  I believe  it  to  be  the  source  of  all  crime, 
not  only  in  the  Army,  but  in  civil  life,  and  I wish  you  every  success 
in  your  efforts  to  counteract  the  evil.”  Field  Marshal,  Lord  Wolseley. 

“Through  the  long  experience  of  my  father  and  my  grandfather, 
extending  over  a period  of  more  than  a hundred  years,  I have  reached 
the  conviction  that  no  other  cause  has  brought  so  much  suffering, 
so  much  disease  and  misery  as  the  use  of  intoxicating  beverages.” 
Charles  Darwin. 

“Turn  now  to  the  temperance  revolution.  In  it  we  shall  find  a 
stronger  bondage  broken,  a viler  slavery  manumitted,  a greater 
tyrant  deposed;  in  it  more  of  want  supplied,  more  disease  healed,  more 
sorrow  assuaged.  By  it  none  wounded  in  feeling,  none  injured  in 
interest;  even  the  dram  maker  and  dram  seller  will  have  glided  into 
other  occupations  so  gradually  as  never  to  have  felt  the  change  and 
will  stand  ready  to  join  all  others  in  the  universal  song  of  gladness. 
And  what  a noble  ally  this  to  the  cause  of  political  freedom.”  Abra- 
ham Lincoln.  Feb.  22,  1842. 

“Without  alcohol,  the  rural  population  of  France  would  be  prac- 
tically untouched  by  tuberculosis.  As  it  is,  alcoholism  is  destroying 
the  peasantry  of  the  healthiest  and  most  beautiful  regions  by  inducing 
tuberculosis.”  M.  Joseph  Reinach,  French  Parliament. 

“A  careful  scientist  has  called  alcohol  the  indispensable  vehicle  of 
the  business  transacted  by  the  white-slave  traders  and  has  asserted 
that  without  its  use  this  trade  could  not  long  continue.”  Jane 
Addams.  McClure  s Magazine,  March  1912. 

“The  alcohol  question  presents  itself  at  every  corner,  to  every  man 
and  woman  desirous  of  solving  the  great  social  problems  that  await 
solution.  It  is  a kind  of  root  problem,  the  settlement  of  which 
would  necessarily  involve  an  adjustment  of  innumerable  other  things 
which  have  a destructive  effect  on  every  hand.  As  a mere  matter 
of  economy  and  time  this  is  a question  worthy  most  serious  considera- 
tion.” Sir  Vezey  Strong,  Lord  Mayor  of  London.  1911. 


[26] 


'opyri^Iit  n)i3,  ^Du’  Srii’iitilic  M'l’niprraiu'c  l‘'(‘(iorat ion,  Hoston,  Mass. 


CHAPTER  II 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 

The  modern  world  is  full  of  problems.  The  increas- 
ing complexity  of  life  means  many  perplexities.  Often 
in  solving  one  problem,  two  new  ones  are  uncovered. 
The  battle  line  of  civilization  lengthens  as  the  army 
of  truth  and  justice  advances.  The  test  of  our  Chris- 
tianity is  our  intelligent  interest  in  these  human  prob- 
lems, and  the  Zealand  effectiveness  of  our  work  in  solving 
them. 

The  problem  of  education  comes  down  to  us  from  an- 
cient times  and  it  is  ever  present.  We  have  made 
some  gains  in  method  and  machinery  since  the  days  of 
Plato,  but  the  output  in  character  is  not  as  encouraging 
as  it  ought  to  be.  Some  phases  of  the  industrial  prob- 
lem are  new  and  serious,  and  while  confusion  abounds 
at  this  point,  we  may  wisely  give  ourselves  to  a chastened 
optimism.  The  problem  of  organized  religion,  the 
church,  is  made  difficult  by  the  decay  of  dogma  and  the 
growth  of  luxuries,  making  us  an  indifferent  and  selfish 
people.  The  problem  of  health  rises  to  increasing  promi- 
nence and  this  is  well.  The  social  problem  is  at  times 
vexatious  and  serious.  Class  consciousness  often 
clashes  with  the  unity  of  social  interests,  and  many  re- 
formers put  too  much  emphasis  on  the  mere  rearrange- 
ment of  individuals  and  the  formal  redistribution  of 
properties,  ignoring  the  supreme  truth  that  the  only 
sure  method  of  progress  is  the  expansion  and  perfection 
of  personal  life;  the  making  of  great  individuals: 

[27] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


individuals  that  are  not  self-centered  but  socialized, 
and  so,  fully  alive  to  the  great  interest  of  humanity. 

There  is,  however,  something  greater  than 
ftoWe'm  these  secondary  problems  just  mentioned. 

The  human  problem  is  supreme.  It  under- 
lies all  others.  They  are  all  incidental  to  it  and  tribu- 
tary to  it.  To  be  rightly  solved  every  other  problem 
must  be  tested  by  the  contribution  which  its  solution 
makes  to  the  Human  Problem.  The  chief  end  of  ci\’i- 
lization,  the  ultimate  aim  of  Christianity,  is  to  make  a 
soul,  not  simply  to  make  scholars,  athletes,  artisans,  or 
church  members.  The  fact  is,  all  problems,  in  the  last 
analysis,  are  ethical  and  spiritual.  The  problem  arises 
just  because  human  welfare  is  endangered  or  destroyed. 
We  are  challenged  to  solve  the  various  problems  about 
us  in  order  to  rescue  or  ennoble  a soul. 

Now,  all  people  ought  to  see,  but  few  people  do  see, 
the  important  fact  that  Drink  intensifies  and  compli- 
cates the  Human  Problem  more  than  anything  else. 
The  most  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  solution 
of  every  problem  with  which  we  have  to  deal  is  the  use 
of  liquors.  And  yet,  few  people  at  present  see  this  mat- 
ter in  its  true  proportion.  It  touches  with  evil  infiuence 
all  lives  all  the  time,  and  at  all  points.  Whenever  we 
turn  a corner,  the  menace  of  the  saloon  meets  us.  But 
who  sufficiently  cares.?  \^^lenever  we  open  a newspaper 
and  read,  the  evils  wrought  by  the  Drink  Habit  are 
spread  upon  every  page.  But  who  sufficiently  cares? 
Whenever  w^e  look  about  our  neighborhood,  the  e\'i- 
dences  of  its  ravages  are  in  many  a house.  But  who 
sufficiently  cares?  Whenever  we  visit  ballot  box, 
council  chamber,  or  legislative  hall,  we  find  that  the 
Liquor  Interests  have  been  there  before  us.  But  who 
sufficiently  cares?  Whenever  we  start  out  to  confer 
some  blessing  or  abolish  some  evil, — to  improve  the 

[28] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


public  health,  rescue  the  victims  of  the  traffic  in  vice, 
or  better  the  condition  of  discharged  convicts,  there 
stands  the  saloon  as  a bar  across  our  pathway.  But 
who  sufficiently  cares 

As  indifferent,  criminally  indifferent,  as 
Indifference  respectable  people  are  on  this  matter,  the 
fact  is  clear  to  any  one  who  has  eyes  to  see, 
that  we  touch  here  the  prime  factor  in  the  solution  of 
the  Human  Problem.  Some  6,000  Sunday  schools  in 
the  State  of  New  York,  but  nearly  28,000  liquor  shops! 
While  the  latter  flourish,  how  little  the  former  can 
accomplish!  Ask  any  employer:  What  is  your  chief 
difficulty?  The  reply  comes  quickly:  So  many  men  are 
worthless  because  they  drink.  Inquire  of  the  doctor 
about  his  patient  and  so  often  he  tells  you:  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  I can  pull  him  through  because  he  has  been 
a drinker.  Go  back  to  the  village  that  you  left  a score 
of  years  ago,  and  ask  about  the  young  men  who  lived 
there  in  your  day.  How  frequently  you  are  told: 
He  began  to  drink  and  was  soon  ruined.  But  who  suf- 
ficiently cares? 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  National  Conference  of 
Charities  and  Correction,  held  in  Seattle,  July,  1913, 
the  conference  sermon  was  preached  by  Rev.  Dr.  A. 
J.  McKelway  of  Washington,  D.  C.  The  preacher 
somewhat  savagely  charged  ministers  and  lawyers  with 
being  indifferent  to  the  cause  of  social  justice.  He  said 
in  part:  “We  crush  our  competitors  through  the  em- 
ployment of  spies  as  book-keepers  in  rival  establish- 
ments, through  rebate  arrangements  with  complacent 
railroad  systems;  we  endow  universities  and  foundations 
for  the  instruction  of  youth  and  the  alleviation  of  human 
suffering.  We  work  women  and  children  in  cotton 
mills  eleven  hours  a day,  we  resist  every  effort  to  raise 
the  age  limit  for  working  children  and  to  shorten  the 

[29] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


hours  for  the  mothers  of  the  race,  and  then  out  of  the 
profits  of  their  industry  beyond  that  which  satisfies 
the  stockholders,  we  build  schools  and  churches  and 
hospitals  and  playgrounds  and  do  all  manner  of  better- 
ment work.” 

These  and  other  evils,  which  he  described,  do  un- 
doubtedly exist.  We  may  hesitate  to  accept  his  lan- 
guage or  his  sociological  diagnosis,  but  no  one  wfil  deny 
that  many  things  in  our  modern  conditions  are  wrong 
and  unjust.  But  in  this  impassioned  condemnation  of 
economic  and  other  evils,  there  was  no  mention  of  the 
Drink  Curse.  This  avoidance  of  reference  to  intemper- 
ance among  writers  and  speakers  on  the  “Social  Prob- 
lem” is  general.  Questions  of  comparatively  small 
importance  are  discussed  with  great  force,  but  the 
vastly  greater  evils  arising  from  the  use  of  liquor  are 
wholly  ignored.  Clubs,  Forums,  and  Conferences 
debate  at  length  a great  variety  of  social,  educational, 
and  reformatory  topics,  but  the  programmes  of  such 
organizations  seldom  have  a reference  to  the  Cnrse  of 
Alcohol.  Everybody  seems  to  be  afraid  of  the  matter. 
Anyone  who  does  mention  it  is  usually  frowned  upon 
as  a crank  or  a fanatic. 

A case  in  point  is  the  Bulletin  of  the  New  York  School 
of  Philanthropy,  for  April,  1909.  A most  interesting 
and  elaborate  programme  of  studies  and  lectures. 
Many  important  topics  were  discussed  by  celebrated 
specialists.  A casual  glance  is  impressive,  almost  op- 
pressive, so  thoroughly  does  the  social  field  seem  to 
be  covered.  But  a careful  search  discovers  just  one 
line  in  reference  to  this  matter — three  words, — “ The 
drink  evil,"  in  sixteen  pages  of  topics  and  sub-topics, 
and  none  whatever  for  the  summer  term  of  1908! 
A curse  so  big  that  not  one  individual  escapes  its  evil 
influences  from  many  directions,  and  yet  practically 

[30] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


ignored  by  those  most  interested  in  human  betterment ! 
Likewise,  hardly  a reference  to  this  matter  in  the  courses 
of  study  in  a majority  of  theological  schools. 

This  situation  is  common  all  over  the 
world:  No  adequate  appreciation  of  the 
gravity  of  the  liquor  problem;  No  sufficient 
realization  of  its  extreme  virulence  or  its  close  relations 
and  large  contributions  to  other  social  evils;  no  willing- 
ness to  face  this,  the  greatest  element  in  the  Human 
Problem.  Here  is  a matter  which  injures  every  good 
thing  in  the  world  and  which  helps  to  increase  every 
other  evil  which  affiicts  us;  and  yet,  indifference  re- 
specting it  meets  us  everywhere.  The  plea  of  Dr.  C. 
W.  Saleeby,  a distinguished  medical  authority  of  Great 
Britain,  is  timely.  In  referring  to  the  programme  of  a 
recently-held  English  conference  on  poverty,  he  said: 
“I  am  bound  to  add  the  expression  of  my  belief  that 
nowhere  in  the  programme  of  proceedings  of  this  great 
National  Conference  on  the  Prevention  of  Destitution 
are  we  showing  due  recognition  of  the  importance  of 
the  national  consumption  of  alcohol,  and  of  alcoholism, 
individual  and  parental,  as  a prime,  originating  vera 
causa  of  destitution  in  nearly  all  its  forms,  not  least 
those  which  are  due  to  mental  defect  or  disease.” 

The  Rt.  Hon.  David  Lloyd-George,  in  speaking  at 
Manchester,  Eng.,  Oct.  21,  1890,  said:  “No  reform,  po- 
litical or  social,  will  avail  in  this  country  unless  you 
precede  it  with  the  Temperance  Reform.”  And  Rt. 
Hon.  John  Burns,  the  great  Labor  Leader,  speaking 
in  the  same  city  more  recently,  said : “ If  only  the  money 
was  spent  in  the  purchasing  of  useful  and  labor-pro- 
ducing commodities,  instead  of  being  wasted  on  beer 
and  betting,  there  would  be  no  need  for  nine-tenths 
of  the  silly  and  foolish  palliatives  that  have  been 
suggested.” 


[31] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Among  those  interested  in  so-called  "uplift  work,” 
we  find,  unfortunate  as  it  is,  an  almost  universal  lack 
of  any  true  sense  of  proportion  respecting  the  impor- 
tance of  the  Drink  Evil  in  comparison  with  other  social 
evils.  The  sermon  of  Dr.  McKelway  is  simply  illus- 
trative of  the  general  attitude  of  Humanitarians  at  the 
present  time.  They  see  clearly  a lot  of  surface  and  in- 
cidental evils,  but  the  really  big  evil,  the  tap-root  that 
bears  or  nourishes  so  many  other  evils,  is  completely 
ignored.  For  instance,  all  the  evils  catalogued  in  this 
sermon,  put  together,  do  not  equal  in  financial  expense 
to  the  nation,  in  injmy  done  to  women  and  children, 
in  ethical  demoralization  and  political  corruption,  in 
terrible  miseries, — they  do  not  equal  the  great  havoc  of 
human  life  caused  by  the  saloon.  The  annual  liquor 
bill  of  the  nation  (to  say  nothing  of  the  indirect  cost 
due  to  heavier  taxes,  increased  sickness,  loss  of  indus- 
trial efficiency — an  immense  siun)  is  some  $1,800,000,- 
000.00, — at  a moderate  estimate.  Enough  to  give  an 
automobile  to  every  tenth  family  in  the  United  States! 
Our  most  unjust  corporations,  all  told,  do  not  rob  the 
poor  of  as  much  money  as  they  waste  in  the  dram 
shops ! 

One  is  reminded  of  the  strange  situation  in  Germany, 
where  there  are  not  more  than  a score  of  cases  of  hydro- 
phobia a year,  and  yet  the  coimtry  makes  elaborate  and 
expensive  preparation  to  prevent  and  cure  this  malady 
and  when  a case  occurs  there  is  wide  spread  alarm,  but 
the  400,000  drunkards  in  the  empire,  and  the  untold 
misery  which  they  cause,  receive  almost  no  attention 
from  the  people  at  large. 

How  very  unfortunate  and  unscientific — 
of^Dra^^s”!  Ignore  the  fact  that  surely  one  half  of  our 
fallen  women  owe  their  shame,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  Drink  (so  experts  assert — see  quotation 

[32] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


from  Dr.  Prince  A.  Morrow,  Chapter  III., p.  54)  and  cen- 
ter emphasis  on  a few  spying  bookkeepers ! Ignore  the 
fact  that  there  are  100,000  arrests  for  drunkenness  a year 
in  Massachusetts  (a  hundred  thousand  homes  disgraced 
and  a quarter  of  a million  children  thereby  hampered  in 
one  way  or  another!),  and  center  emphasis  on  the  child- 
labor  problem  alone,  itself  largely  a product  of  Drink! 
The  drinking  habits  of  parents  impose  ten  fold  more 
labor  hardships  upon  children  than  can  be  found  in  all 
the  mills  of  the  land.  And  yet,  many  advocates  of  social 
justice  do  not  seem  to  care  anything  about  this  gigan- 
tic curse.  So  solicitous  that  the  hours  of  labor  for  the 
mothers  of  the  race  be  shortened,  but  no  eye  to  see  the 
thousands  of  mothers  who  are  working  in  abject  poverty, 
because  husbands  spend  their  money  in  250,000  saloons ! 
So  solicitous  that  the  age  limit  for  working  cliildren  be 
raised,  but  no  heart  to  feel  for  the  thousands  of  children 
born  every  year  defeetive  and  deformed  because  of  the 
drinking  habits  of  their  parents! 

On  this  point  an  eminent  English  publicist,  Sir 
Thomas  P.  Whittaker,  has  well  written: 

“ We  are  very  much  concerned  over  the  well-being  of  the  children, 
and  the  raising  of  their  condition.  We  like  to  start  them  well  in  life, 
and  all  sorts  of  schemes  are  talked  about.  Do  you  realize  that  the 
money  spent  on  liquor  every  year  in  the  British  Isles  would  be  sufB- 
cient  to  give  every  child  born  during  the  year,  at  birth  some  $700.00 
in  cash?  I want  you  to  get  the  true  perspective  and  the  true  sense  of 
proportion;  and  when  we  are  wasting  the  money  that  would  do  this, 
no  wonder  there  is  destitution.”  And  to  these  words  we  need  to  add 
a paragraph  from  Dr.  Barnardo,  that  great  friend  of  London  waifs, 
who  in  his  report  for  1888,  after  having  carefully  tabulated  the  thou- 
sands of  cases  which  had  passed  through  his  Homes,  made  this  state- 
ment: “The  astonishing  fact  emerged  (doubly  astonishing  to  me,  be- 
cause I was  not  then  a total  abstainer,  nor  even  in  sympathy  with  that 
movement)  that  no  less  than  85  per  cent,  of  all  the  children  whom  we 
admitted  to  the  Homes  under  my  care  owed  their  social  ruin  and  the 

[33] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


long  train  of  their  distresses  to  the  influence,  direct  or  indirect,  of 
the  drinking  habits  of  their  parents,  or  grandparents,  or  other 
relatives.” 

Again,  so  hot  in  protest  against  the  greed  of  land- 
lords who  maintain  unsanitary  tenements — surely  an 
evil  that  needs  drastic  measures;  but  the  tempting  liquor 
shops  around  the  corner  that  devour  the  wages  of  the 
men  and  compel  the  family  to  live  in  such  a place, — 
they  are  passed  unnoticed.  And  yet,  the  greed  of  the 
liquor  trade  does  the  poor  ten  fold  more  harm  than  all 
the  grasping  landlords  in  our  cities.  The  drinking  in 
those  saloons  causes,  directly  or  indirectly,  more  dis- 
ease and  death  than  the  overcrowding  in  the  tenements. 
The  injustice  of  the  landlord  is  not  a drop  in  the  bucket 
to  the  injustice  of  the  saloon  business,  which  not  only 
robs  a man  of  his  wages,  but  which  gives  him  what  makes 
him  a poorer  workman,  a poorer  parent,  and  a poorer 
citizen. 

To  show  that  these  statements  are  supported  by  the 
most  eminent  authorities  on  this  very  matter,  let  us 
turn  to  the  conclusion  of  IMr.  John  S.  Nettlefold,  Chair- 
man of  the  Housing  Committee  of  the  Birmingham 
City  Council,  who  writes: 

“Few  people  not  immediately  connected  with,  or  intimately  inter- 
ested in,  housing  reform  and  rescue  work  in  the  slums  of  our  large 
cities,  realize  to  the  full  how  great  an  effect  the  drink  evil  has  on  our 
social  miseries,  and  therefore  it  is  necessary  to  emphasize  this  branch 
of  the  housing  problem.  All  I have  to  do  is  to  point  out  that  so 
long  as  the  evil  of  e.xcessive  drinking  exists,  so  long  will  the  labors  of 
social  reformers,  philanthropists,  local  authorities,  and  property  owners 
in  attempting  the  solution  of  the  Housing  Problem  be  largely  thrown 
away.  Also  that  where  the  abolition  of  excessive  drinking  facilities 
has  brought  dowm  the  number  of  public-houses  to  a figure  sufficient 
for  the  legitimate  demands  of  the  neighborhood,  and  no  more,  there 
we  find  a great  step  towards  a better  state  of  housing  affairs.  In 

[34] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


confirmation  of  this  statement  is  the  wellknown  fact  that  as  soon  as 
you  get  a man  in  one  of  these  bad  tenements  to  stop  drinking,  he  at 
once  moves  to  a better  place  for  he  can  then  pay  the  higher  rent!” 

From  the  fact  that  so  many  eminent  re- 
Biintoess  formers  and  sociologists,  as  a rule,  pay  lit- 
tle or  no  attention  to  the  Drink  Curse,  one  is 
often  moved  to  infer  that  a majority  of  educated  people 
are  so  “liquor-blind”  that  they  cannot  see  the  most 
gigantic  evil  in  the  modern  world ! Here,  for  instance, 
is  an  editorial  in  the  “Outlook”  (October  1,  1910), 
on  “Literature  of  Crime  in  Russia,”  which  calls  at- 
tention to  the  great  mass  of  common  crime  which  is 
rolling  over  the  dominion  of  the  Czar,  and  claims  that 
it  is  largely  due  to  the  wide  circulation  of  cheap  but  vile 
literature,  nearly  9,000,000  copies  of  “penny  dread- 
fuls” (stories  of  criminal  careers)  having  been  sold  in 
that  land  in  1909.  The  situation  is  certainly  distress- 
ing, because  such  vicious  books  must  have  a very  in- 
jurious influence.  We  are  glad  that  the  “Outlook” 
has  called  attention  to  the  matter. 

But  why  pass  by  something  that  is  far  more  produc- 
tive of  crime  and  more  destructive  of  human  life  in  that 
country — the  Drink  Habit  and  the  Liquor  Traffic? 
The  Czar  is  the  biggest  liquor  seller  in  the  world.  He 
has  a monopoly  of  the  business  in  the  nation,  from 
which  he  annually  derives  an  income  of  some  $400,- 
000,000.00,  which  comes  largely  from  peasants,  who, 
on  an  average,  receive  a daily  wage  of  only  fifteen  or 
twenty  cents!  It  is  difficult  to  tell  what  the  common 
people  really  pay  out  for  liquor  (chiefly  vodka),  for  the 
immense  sum  of  $400,000,000.00  a year  represents 
chiefly  the  profits  of  the  trade  to  the  government. 

The  cheap  criminal  literature  (9,000,000  copies) 
costs  the  people  less  than  $300,000.00.  The  same 

[35] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


people  probably  spend  over  $100,000,000.00  a year 
on  vodka — 300  times  as  much!  The  three  cents  for 
the  vile  story  is  not  felt;  but  the  $10.00  a year  for  vodka 
is  from  a fifth  to  a sixth  of  the  annual  income  of  the 
poorest  families  1 And  this  financial  waste  keeps  peas- 
ants and  their  families  in  a state  of  hunger  and  squalor, 
which  alone  probably  produces  more  crime  than  all  the 
literature  to  which  reference  has  been  made. 

But  consider  some  other  serious  elements  of  the 
problem:  This  liquor  induces  disease  and  prevents 
recovery  when  sick,  and  all  this  means  not  only  pain 
and  sorrow  for  the  family,  but  financial  loss  to  the  in- 
dividual and  economic  waste  for  the  nation;  millions 
of  days’  labor  are  so  lost  during  the  year.  The  drinker 
on  this  account  is  also  a poorer  and  a more  quarrelsome 
workman.  The  effects  upon  his  children  are  harmful, 
as  we  positively  know,  both  upon  their  bodies  and  their 
minds.  Then  there  are  the  crimes  which  come  directly 
and  indirectly  from  the  use  of  such  strong  drink.  The 
offences  actually  instigated  by  liquor,  the  quarrels  in- 
cident to  drunkenness,  the  evil  passions  unnaturally 
aroused  by  intoxicants  and  the  deranged  and  depraved 
inheritance  in  children,  which  later  prompts  a criminal 
career.  These  are  only  a few  of  the  more  obvious 
evils  due  to  the  wretched  habit.  So  that,  it  is  probably 
true  that  where  the  “penny  dreadful”  may  cause  one 
crime,  the  bottles  of  vodka  cause  a score.  EAudently, 
the  alarm  of  the  “Outlook”  over  the  criminal  literature 
in  Russia  is  a grievous  case  of  straining  at  a gnat  and 
swallowing  a camel!  This  editorial  is  significant  and 
alarming,  because  so  typical  of  the  mood  of  the  hour; 
fighting  a lot  of  secondary  consequences  and  paying 
no  attention  whatever  to  the  chief  source  of  misery  and 
crime! 

This  “liquor-blindness”  is  really  an  appalhng  symp- 
[36] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


tom  of  the  age.  One  twentieth  of  the  population  an- 
nually arrested  in  some  cities  for  drunkenness.  But 
this  is  a fact  of  no  social  consequence.  Every  twentieth 
child  born  with  a serious  handicap,  due  to  parental 
use  of  liquor.  But  this  is  a fact  of  no  social  conse- 
quence. One  young  man  in  every  small  neighborhood 
annually  turned  to  a criminal  career  by  the  saloon. 
But  this  fact  is  of  no  social  consequence.  Every  tenth 
man  more  or  less  incapacitated  as  an  industrial  agent 
by  whisky.  But  this  is  a fact  of  no  social  consequence. 
Three  out  of  every  four  persons  who  step  across  the 
threshold  of  the  poorhouse  driven  there  by  the  curse 
of  Drink.  But  this  is  a fact  of  no  social  consequence. 
Twice  as  much  money  wasted  on  Drink  as  spent  for 
all  kinds  of  insurance.  But  this  is  a fact  of  no  social 
consequence.  The  ravages  of  disease  enlarged  and 
intensified  by  liquor.  But  this  is  a fact  of  no  social 
consequence.  Surely  this  unfortunate  indifference 
must  soon  cease. 

We  hear  today  a great  deal  about  tuber- 
and  Drink  culosis  and  its  prevention.  It  is  estimated 
that  in  1909  there  were  nearly  82,000 
deaths  from  tuberculosis  in  the  United  States.  The 
present  war  against  the  White  Plague  is  an  exceedingly 
noble  enterprise  which  will  contribute  a great  deal  to 
human  happiness  and  the  progress  of  mankind.  But 
in  this  connection  let  us  bear  in  mind:  A very  large 
part  of  the  cases  of  tuberculosis  are  due,  we  are  authori- 
tatively told,  directly  or  indirectly  to  Drink.  It  has 
become  a common  saying  in  the  medical  profession: 
“The  use  of  alcoholic  beverages  makes  the  bed  for  tuber- 
culosis.” Alcohol  is  a cell-poison,  especially  destructive 
to  the  white  corpuscles  of  the  blood,  the  police  force 
of  the  body,  one  of  whose  functions  is  to  kill  the  invad- 
ing disease  germs.  There  is  no  better  authority  on 

[37] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


this  point  than  Prof.  Elie  Metchnikoff,  the  successor  of 
Pasteur,  who  states:  “Alcohol  lowers  the  resistance  of 
the  white  corpuscles  which  are  the  natural  defenders 
of  the  body.  Although  the  phagocytes  belong  to  the 
most  resistant  elements  of  the  body,  yet  it  is  not  safe 
to  count  on  their  insensibility  toward  poison.  . . . 

It  is  well  known  that  persons  who  indulge  too  freely  in 
alcohol  show  far  less  resistance  to  infectious  diseases 
than  abstemious  individuals.”  The  New  Hygiene,  pp. 
25-27,  1906. 

This  close  connection  between  alcohol  and  tubercu- 
losis has  nowhere  been  more  clearly  shown  than  in 
France,  whose  medical  authorities  have  been  foremost  in 
taking  advanced  ground  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Jacques 
Bertillon,  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Statutes, 
Paris,  declares:  “Alcohol  appears  to  be  the  most 
deadly  cause  of  the  weakening  of  the  organism  in 
preparation  for  tuberculosis.  It  is  the  master  cause. 
All  other  causes  disappear  in  comparison.”  Recently, 
the  Director  of  Public  Hygiene,  Paris,  M.  Mirman, 
after  an  exhaustive  study,  stated:  “There  is  an  exact 
agreement  between  the  departments  where  the  deaths 
from  tuberculosis  are  the  most  numerous,  and  those  in 
which  the  most  alcohol  is  drunk.”  The  late  Prof. 
Paul  C.  H.  Brouardel,  M.  D.,  (died  1906),  a leading 
hygienist  (Paris),  asserted  most  emphatically  at  the 
Tuberculosis  Congress,  London,  1901:  “Alcohol  is 
the  most  powerful  factor  in  the  propagation  of  tuber- 
culosis.” At  the  same  Congress,  Prof.  William  Osier, 
M.D.,  one  of  the  greatest  medical  authorities  in  the 
world,  used  this  language:  “It  was  formerly  thought 
that  alcohol  was  in  some  way  antagonistic  to  tubercu- 
lous disease,  but  the  observations  of  late  years  indicate 
clearly  that  the  reverse  is  the  case,  and  that  drinkers 

[38] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


are  much  more  liable  to  both  acute  and  pulmonary 
tuberculosis.”  A most  decisive  testimony. 

A few  years  later,  meeting  at  Paris,  this  Congress 
passed  the  following  resolution;  “In  view  of  the  close 
connection  between  alcoholism  and  tuberculosis,  it  is 
important  to  combat  alcoholism  as  well  as  tuberculosis.” 
Prof.  S.  E.  Henschen  of  Stockholm,  in  a very  elaborate 
address  at  the  Twelfth  International  Congress  on 
Alcoholism,  London  (1909),  thus  summarized  his  in- 
vestigations: “Tuberculosis  is  the  disease  of  poverty, 
but  alcohol  is  the  mightiest  factor  in  producing  pov- 
erty, especially  in  the  larger  towns.”  No  higher 
American  authority  on  this  point  can  be  cited  than  Prof. 
S.  Adolphus  Knopf,  M.  D.  (New  York  Post  Graduate 
Medical  School),  who  writes:  “That  alcoholism  is  one 
of  the  greatest  direct  and  indirect  causes  that  prepare 
the  field  for  the  tubercle  bacilli  is  now  generally  con- 
ceded.” Twentieth  Century  Practice,  vol.  XX.  1900. 
An  eminent  German  scientist.  Prof.  Anton  Weichsel- 
baum.  Rector  (president)  of  the  University  of  Vienna, 
in  a notable  article,  recently  published,  places  this 
statement  at  the  head  of  his  important  conclusions: 
“That  in  order  to  resist  tuberculosis  successfully,  it 
is  absolutely  necessary  that  we  energetically  oppose 
the  prevailing  drinking  customs,  and  in  this  matter, 
abstinence  is  decidedly  preferable  to  mere  modera- 
tion.” 

Recently  the  people  of  Sheffield,  England,  became 
very  much  alarmed  over  the  high  death  rate  of  its 
“ grinders,”  An  inquiry  was  made  by  the  Home  Office, 
which,  after  a long  and  searching  investigation,  arrived 
at  this  conclusion:  That  the  problem  of  the  high  mor- 
tality from  tuberculosis  was  at  least  fifty  per  cent,  a 
temperance  problem!  And  there  is  no  end  of  similar 
testimonies. 


[39] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


But  the  menace  of  Drink  in  connection 
with  tuberculosis  is  not  the  only  evil  to  be 
charged  against  liquor,  even  in  the  realm  of  disease 
and  death.  It  is  obviously  impossible  for  anyone 
to  make  even  an  approximately  accurate  estimate 
of  the  annual  loss  of  human  life  in  the  United 
States  caused  by  Drink.  The  problem  is  too  complex 
for  precise  statistical  calculation.  How  many  thousand 
surgical  patients  die  chiefly  because  they  have  been 
drinkers, — who  can  teU.?  How  many  thousand  indi- 
viduals contract  disease  because  weakened  by  alcohol, — 
who  can  tell?  How  many  thousand  die  from  alcohol- 
ism, alone, — who  can  tell?  Mr.  Edward  B.  Phelps  con- 
cludes (The  Mortality  of  Alcohol,  p.  64,  1911)  that 
there  are  annually  65,897  “deaths  in  which  alcohol 
may  have  flgured  as  a causative  or  contributory  factor.” 
But  this  seems  to  many  good  authorities  an  extreme 
under-statement. 

These  deaths,  if  we  accept  this  low  flgure,  do  not  by 
any  means  represent  the  total  fatalities  due  to  Drink. 
There  are  among  us  every  year  some  3,000  homicides, 
and  probably  half  are  chiefly  due  to  liquor.  In  1912, 
there  were  nearly  20,000  deaths  in  connection  with 
railroads,  steamboats,  street  cars,  automobiles;  and 
Drink  probably  had  something  to  do  with  at  least  one- 
third  of  these.  Then  there  are  the  thousands  of  deaths 
due  to  industrial  accidents  (U.  S.  Census  Bulletin, 
No.  83  places  the  number  of  deaths  by  accidents  and 
violence  at  57,500  in  1900),  and  probably  in  5,000  cases 
armually,  liquor  is  the  determining  factor.  These 
estimates  give  us  an  annual  harvest  of  deaths  in  our 
country  of  about  80,000  adults  mainly  due  to  Drink. 
To  this  number  must  be  added  the  children  who  die 
every  year  as  the  result  of  “alcoholic  heredity”  (to 
say  nothing  of  alcoholized  environment,  a powerfully 

[40] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


destructive  factor).  If  we  apply  the  percentages  of 
Professor  Laitinen  (See  Chapter  V.,  p.  99)  to  the 

300.000  children  under  five  years  of  age  who  die  an- 
nually in  our  land,  we  have  at  an  inside  calculation,  the 
death  of  20,000  children  largely  due  to  the  parental 
use  of  liquor.  This  makes  a grand  total  of  over 

100.000  human  lives  annually  destroyed  in  our  nation 
by  Drink.  The  real  facts  are  probably  far  in  excess 
of  these  figures. 

Temperance  advocates  are  often  accused 
Mv™acy^of  extreme  exaggeration,  being  condemned 
Temperance  ^s  inaccurate  in  statement  and  illogical 
in  argument.  Such  charges  do  unfortu- 
nately have  some  basis  in  the  facts  of  the  case.  But 
any  one  who  reads  with  care  and  fairness,  both  the 
literature  of  temperance  and  the  publications  of  the 
Liquor  Interests,  must  admit  that  the  large  prepon- 
derance of  sins  under  this  head  belong  to  the  defenders 
of  the  saloons.  And  when  we  consider  all  the  circum- 
stances, it  is  not  strange  that  there  are  very  many 
“ temperance  fanatics.”  We  may  well  marvel  that  there 
are  not  a hundred  fold  more.  In  view  of  the  terrible 
destruction  of  human  life  by  the  Drink  Curse;  in  view 
of  the  vicious  dominance  of  the  Liquor  Interests  in 
the  public  affairs  of  our  lands  it  is  surprising  that  a wave 
of  wild  fanaticism  does  not  sweep  from  ocean  to  ocean ! 
The  situation  is  sufficiently  alarming  and  menacing 
to  stir  a heart  of  stone  to  hot  protest  and  heroic 
action ! 

One  element  in  the  present  situation  which 
A New  tends  to  stir  the  man  who  is  not  “liquor 
blind,”  to  a state  of  impatience  bordering 
on  fanaticism  is  the  fact  that  even  good 
people  in  general  refuse  to  recognize  the  magnitude  of 
the  Drink-Evil,  as  has  just  been  pointed  out  and  in 

[41] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


confirmation  of  which  these  few  illustrative  examples, 
out  of  scores  that  might  be  cited,  have  been  presented. 

A single  incident  in  the  news  of  the  day  confirms  this 
claim.  The  papers  have  just  been  giving  (New  Years, 
1914)  a catalogue  of  the  benefactions  of  the  year.  A 
remarkable  list,  amounting  to  $348,000,000.00.  YTiat 
wonderful  generosity!  Innumerable  institutions  blessed 
with  large  funds.  Almost  every  possible  interest 
in  human  life  remembered.  But  no  gifts  specif- 
ically for  Temperance:  no  “sinews  of  war”  proxdded  to 
fight  the  greatest  enemy  of  mankind.  The  root  of  so 
many  other  evils,  but  no  one  provides  suflBcient  money 
to  destroy  it.  If  destroyed,  how  reforms  would  prosper 
in  many  directions! 

Will  not  some  millionaire  soon  come  forward  and  say: 
“Here  is  my  fortune  to  fight  the  foe  of  every  woman 
and  every  child,  the  enemy  of  every  school,  church, 
and  home.”  We  need  a new  Nobel  Prize  to  be  given 
to  those  who  do  valiant  service,  not  simply  to  promote 
peace  among  nations  (a  noble  cause),  but  to  destroy 
wbat  ruins  the  peace  of  ten  fold  more  hearts  and  homes 
than  war  ever  touches. 

We  are  not  near  the  end  of  the  matter. 
Endless  when  we  have  pointed  out  the  close  rela- 
tion of  Drink  to  tuberculosis  and  other 
diseases.  The  indictment  along  economic, 
social  and  moral  lines  is  even  more  serious.  The  con- 
sumptive father  is  a burden  upon  his  family,  but  he 
does  not  cause  miseries  comparable  with  those  inflicted 
by  the  drunkard.  A case  of  typhoid  fever  may  so 
lessen  the  resources  of  a family  that  children  have  to  be 
taken  out  of  school  and  set  to  work — a misfortune.  But 
how  slight  this  misfortune  compared  to  the  handicap 
of  a bad  inheritance  passed  on  to  the  rising  generation 
by  the  constant  drinker,  who,  however,  may  never  be 

[42] 


Chain  of 
Evils 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


drunk!  At  its  worst,  tuberculosis  does  not  turn  its 
victim  into  a beast,  abusing  his  family,  and  committing 
crimes  against  society.  How  small  a menace  to  civi- 
lization are  half  a dozen  consumptives  in  a village  in 
comparison  to  a saloon  which  is  the  center  of  financial 
waste,  social  vice,  and  political  corruption! 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  point  to  be  emphasized  is 
this:  How  unfortunate  that  our  leaders  and  teachers 
are  so  devoid  of  any  true  sense  of  proportion.  They  do 
not  see  the  evils  of  the  world  in  their  real  relations. 
The  most  important  factor  in  the  Human  Problem 
they  pass  unnoticed.  It  is  well  to  fight  the  White 
Plague,  but  it  is  not  well  to  be  so  indifferent  to  an  im- 
mensely greater  evil,  the  Drink  Curse. 

But  there  are  helpful  voices  here  and  there.  An 
English  writer  has  recently  pointed  out:  “A  strong  col- 
lective responsibility  is  being  laid  on  society,  by  hygienic 
industrial  reformers,  for  the  drinking  habits  of  the  people 
who  are  the  workers.  They  show  us  that  the  Drink 
Question  is  inextricably  intertwined  with  all  the  ques- 
tions of  social  waste  of  human  health  in  labor.”  A most 
significant  statement.  Here  is  a statement  equally 
noteworthy,  by  Col.  L.  Mervin  Mans,  Chief  Surgeon 
Eastern  Division,  U.  S.  A.,  from  an  article  in  the  Medi- 
calRecord  (Feb.  22,  1913):  “Temperance  has  become 
the  most  important  sociological  problem  of  the  age. 
Apart  from  its  bearing  on  the  health  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  human  race,  temperance  has  become  a cold- 
blooded business  proposition  which  is  assuming  the 
greatest  importance  in  the  commercial  world.  Profes- 
sional and  business  men  everywhere  are  beginning  to 
learn  that  even  the  mildest  manifestations  of  the  Drink 
Habit  unfit  men  for  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  life.” 

The  Crown  Prince  of  Sweden  used  these  notable 
words  some  four  years  ago: 

[43] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


“The  temperance  movement  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  our  time,  a 
movement  by  which  the  people  will  gain  self-reliance  and  self-control. 
The  final  aim  is  nothing  else  than  the  most  complete  possible  bbera- 
tion  of  our  people  from  the  destructive  eSects  of  the  use  of  alcohol. 
There  are,  of  course,  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  best  ways  of 
attaining  this  end.  But  that  the  end  can  and  must  be  reached  is 
the  principal  point  upon  which  all  are  united.  In  our  time  the  strug- 
gle for  existence  goes  on  among  the  people  with  increasing  sharpness 
because  general  development  is  progressing  with  remarkable  and 
increasing  swiltness.  I do  not  hesitate  to  make  this  assertion:  That 
nation  which  is  the  first  to  free  itself  from  the  injurious  effects  of  alcohol 
will  thereby  attain  a marked  advantage  over  nations  in  the  amiable 
yet  intensive  stuggle  for  existence.  I hope  that  our  country  will  be 
the  one  which  will  first  understand  and  secure  this  advantage.” 


In  this  connection,  it  is  well  to  remember 
j^jggjy  that  the  present  vigorous  campaign  against 
the  “^Vhite  Plague”  which  has  already  ac- 
complished so  much,  was  recently  inaugurated,  largely 
through  the  efforts  of  Dr.  Edward  T.  Devine,  of  New 
York  City,  a man  of  very  large  experience  in  works  for 
human  betterment.  On  this  account,  it  is  all  the  more 
surprising  that,  in  a notable  book,  “Misery  and  its 
Causes”  (1909),  by  one  so  wise  and  active  in  philan- 
thropic endeavor,  there  should  be  no  adequate  treat- 
ment of  the  Drink  Curse.  Nowhere  else  do  we  find  a 
more  striking  illustration  of  the  theme  of  these  pages: 
the  lack  of  a true  appreciation  of  this  gigantic  e^’il  by 
our  social  VTiters  and  workers.  It  is  not  seen  in  its  real 
relation  or  true  proportion  among  the  other  e\’ils  of 
our  time. 

The  contention  of  this  interesting  book  is  that  the 
causes  of  human  misery  lie  chiefly  in  the  direction  of 
economic  maladministration:  industrial  inefficiency,  social 
injustice,  and  unsanitary  conditions.  Material  factors 
are  emphasized  and  moral  elements  largely  ignored. 

[44] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


As  is  the  habit  of  the  times,  no  attention  is  given  to  the 
human  will  as  an  element  in  the  Human  Problem. 
There  is  in  these  pages  some  recognition  of  Drink, 
but  it  is  slight  and  superficial.  Its  influence  as  a very 
large  cause  of  human  misery  is  nowhere  adequately 
accepted  or  clearly  described. 

The  diagnosis  seems  strangely  superficial.  Indus- 
trial inefficiency  the  cause  of  misery Yes!  But  how 
often  this  inefficiency  is  due  to  Drink,  either  to  the 
intemperance  of  the  individual  himself  or  to  some  defect 
in  him  due  to  parental  drinking.  Social  injustice  the 
cause  of  misery?  Yes!  But  where  do  we  find  the 
greatest  social  injustice?  That  practiced  by  fathers 
upon  their  families  by  spending  money  viciously  upon 
liquors,  and  so  robbing  the  home  of  necessities,  and  also 
unfitting  themselves  for  better  service  and  larger  wages, 
which  means  that  children  must  leave  school  and 
mothers  go  out  to  work.  Where  so  great  a “social 
injustice”  as  that  which  the  community  itself  perpe- 
trates by  protecting  saloons  which  corrupt  and  degrade 
the  whole  neighborhood?  Unsanitary  conditions  the 
causes  of  misery?  Yes!  But  what  crowds  the  family 
into  the  unhealthy  tenement?  The  money  spent  in  the 
corner  saloon  would  pay  the  rent  of  a wholesome 
cottage.  Unsanitary  conditions?  Yes,  indeed!  But 
drinking  liquor  is  the  most  unsanitary  occupation  in 
the  world.  As  has  just  been  pointed  out,  nothing  else 
does  so  much  to  induce  disease  or  increase  mortality. 

As  I first  read  “Misery  and  its  Causes,”  I said  to  my- 
self: Let  me  appeal  to  the  facts  of  human  misery  that 
lie  thick  about  me  in  the  very  community  in  which 
I once  lived,  a community  more  sober  than  the  average: 
In  the  next  house,  a mother  in  poverty  and  shame,  be- 
cause her  son  drinks  (a  skillful  workman  when  sober), 
and  his  family  broken  up  because  of  this  fact.  The 

[45] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


boy  who  blows  the  organ  of  a neighboring  church, 
compelled  to  leave  school  while  his  mother  goes  out 
washing,  because  his  father  is  a drunkard,  though  able, 
when  sober,  to  earn  fifty  dollars  a week.  Not  far  off, 
a woman  in  deepest  mourning,  because  her  husband, 
who  was  a sot  (though  a capable  business  man  when 
sober),  committed  suicide.  Around  the  corner,  a 
widow  bowed  in  grief,  because  the  son,  who  ought  to 
support  her,  spends  his  money  on  Drink.  Over  the  hill, 
a family  of  little  children,  neglected,  always  in  rags  and 
often  hungry:  the  father  in  the  saloon  at  night.  In 
the  house  of  a wealthy  family,  a dissipated  young  man 
who  daily  brings  shame  and  anxiety  to  parents  and  sis- 
ters! These  are  not  all,  but  why  prolong  the  sad  list? 
Not  a case  among  them  in  which  “industrial  malad- 
ministration” plays  any  part:  but  in  every  case.  Drink 
was  the  sole  or  chief  cause  of  miseries.  Nothing  but 
most  unfortunate  “liquor  blindness”  can  account  for 
the  failure  of  good  and  wise  men  to  see  this  Drink  Curse 
in  its  true  proportion. 

Let  us  appeal  again  to  the  facts.  Three 
Record'**^  years  ago  last  Christmas  (1910),  a record 
was  kept,  by  the  Alliance  News,  of  the  rav- 
ages of  Drink  in  Great  Britain  for  two  weeks  as  reported 
in  the  public  press.  As  we  take  this  glimpse  into  the 
abyss,  let  us  remember  that  this  is  only  a very  small 
part  of  the  story;  the  days  of  labor  lost,  the  accidents 
caused,  the  diseases  induced,  the  homes  left  in  cold  and 
hunger,  the  children  prevented  from  attending  school, 
the  loss  and  inconvenience  of  employers,  the  shame  and 
sorrow  of  wife  and  mother,  these  this  record  does  not 
report. 

The  following  is  the  summary  of  the  number  of  cases, 
classified  for  convenience  of  reference. 

[46] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


I.  Deaths:  Cases 

(a)  Murder  and  Manslaughter  Charges  6 

(b)  Suicides 16 

(c)  Misadventure 38 

(d)  Excessive  Drinking 27 

(e)  Children 5 

II.  Attempted  Suicides 28 

III.  Assaults  and  Woundings: 

(a)  Upon  Wives 42 

(b)  Upon  Police 88 

(c)  In  Licensed  Premises 42 

(d)  General.  . 110 

IV.  Children: 

(a)  Cruelty 14 

(b)  Drunk  in  Charge  of  a Child 14 

(c)  Juvenile  Intoxication 12 

V.  Desertion 20 

VI.  Offences  against  Property: 

(a)  Theft: 

(1)  In  Licensed  Houses 16 

(2)  Other  Cases 63 

(b)  Damage: 

(1)  In  Licensed  Houses 15 

(2)  Other  Cases 23 

VII.  Drunk  in  Charge  of  Vehicles: 

(a)  Motors 10 

(b)  Carriages  and  Carts 38 

VIII.  Drunkenness: 

(a)  On  Licensed  Premises 26 

(b)  General 1,575 


Total 2,228 

[47] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


All  this  for  one  fortnight!  Some  60,000  cases  a year 
chiefly  due  to  Drink,  as  reported  in  the  newspapers — 
obviously  many  cases  not  reported  at  all,  while  many 
others  really  due  to  liquor  very  naturally  were  not  so 
described.  And  yet,  the  vast  flood  of  human  miserjq 
issuing  from  beer  keg  and  whisky  bottle,  is  apparently 
mseen  by  very  many  of  our  reform  leaders  I 

Nowhere  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole 
matter,  here  discussed,  better  set  forth  than 
by  the  President  of  the  Illinois  State  Board 
of  Health,  Dr.  George  W.  Webster,  at  the  end  of  an 
exhaustive  survey  of  the  “Alcohol  Problem”  in  these 
words  (U.  S.  Senate  Document,  No.  48,  1909) : 

“The  alcohol  problem  is  more  important  than  the  tuberculosis 
problem  as  (1)  it  costs  more  lives  and  more  money;  (2)  it  costs  the 
United  States  over  $2,000,000,000  annually;  (3)  it  probably  causes, 
directly  and  indirectly,  at  least  10  per  cent  of  all  deaths  in  the  United 
States;  (4)  it  predisposes  to  infection,  destroys  acquired  immunity, 
prevents  the  occurrence  of  artifical  immunity,  at  least  in  rabies, 
lessens  resistance,  leads  to  an  increased  mortality  in  all  infectious 
diseases  and  after  surgical  operations;  (5)  it  lessens  the  power  of  the 
individual  to  resist  the  injurious  influences  of  extreme  heat  and  cold; 
(6)  it  causes  a deterioration  of  the  quality  of  mental  work;  (7)  it 
diminishes  the  power  to  withstand  fatigue  and  lessens  the  general 
efliciency  of  the  individual;  (8)  it  is  a poison  and  should  be  classed  as 
such,  instead  of  as  a food  or  stimulant;  (9)  when  the  physicians  take 
hold  of  the  question  in  the  same  spirit  as  they  have  shown  concerning 
yellow  fever,  malaria,  and  small  pox,  instead  of  treating  it  as  a moral 
question  and  leaving  it  to  clergymen,  temperance  workers,  and  en- 
thusiastic reformers,  we  may  expect  better  results;  (10)  more  may  be 
accomplished  by  teaching  the  people  the  truth  in  regard  to  the  fatal 
effects  of  alcohol  upon  mental  and  physical  efficiency  than  by  expa- 
tiating on  the  moral  wickedness  of  drinking.” 

A long  list  of  doctors  and  publicists,  more  especially 
in  European  countries,  begin  to  see  the  Drink  Curse  in 

[48] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


its  true  proportions.  Sir  Thomas  Barlow,  M.D.,  of 
London,  who  stands  at  the  head  of  the  medical  pro- 
fession in  Great  Britain  (presiding  over  the  International 
Medical  Congress,  London,  while  these  words  are  being 
written,  Aug.,  1913)  declares:  “Intemperance  is  one 
of  our  greatest  national  crimes,  and  the  greatest  hind- 
rance to  our  national  efficiency.”  Sir  Robert  Stout, 
Chief  Justice  of  New  Zealand,  in  a recent  article  in  the 
“National  Review,”  dwells  forcibly  on  the  same  point: 
“In  my  opinion,  no  lover  of  his  race  or  empire  can  shut 
his  eyes  to  the  terrible  evils  of  alcoholic  drinking.  It 
is  a more  real  danger  thanthe  dr eadnaughts  of  Germany.” 
A very  sane  and  careful  writer  on  this  subject,  Mr. 
John  Newton,  in  an  admirable  little  book,  has  stated 
the  matter  fairly,  after  alluding  to  it  as  a neglected 
chapter  in  political  economy:  “Political  economists 
and  social  scientists  have  paid  insufficient  attention 
to  the  economic,  industrial,  and  social  effects  of  our 
enormous  expenditure  on  intoxicating  liquors.”  Our 
National  Drink  Bill,  1909. 

And  to  justify  this  statement,  Mr.  Newton  calls 
attention  to  a few  startling  facts,  as  illustrated  by  his 
own  country.  Two  months’  Drink  Bill  of  the  British 
Isles  would  pay  for  the  army,  one  week’s  Drink  Bill 
would  pay  for  the  navy;  one  eighth  of  the  Drink  Bill 
would  pay  for  the  public  education;  and  one  twelfth 
of  the  Drink  Bill  would  maintain  all  its  highways, 
bridges  and  ferries!  But  thousands  of  respectable  and 
intelligent  people  do  not  seem  to  care  anything  about 
the  matter.  They  maintain  a truly  pagan  indifference 
to  this  main  cause,  not  only  of  industrial  inefficiency, 
but  of  human  misery  in  general. 

. The  situation  with  us  in  America  is  slmi- 

indifference  instance:  Today,  press,  pulpit, 

and  platform  are  constantly  full  of  pleas  in 

[49] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


behalf  of  the  conservation  of  our  natural  resources. 
Surely  a good  cause.  But  is  not  a boy  worth  more 
than  a tree.^  Why  so  eager  to  protect  forests  from  fire 
and  axe,  but  doing  so  little  to  protect  the  boys  from 
the  ravages  of  the  saloons.?  A hundredth  part  of  what 
is  worse  than  wasted  on  Drink  would  protect  all  our 
woodlands  from  insects  and  fires!  Bare  hills  are  not 
so  great  a menace  to  civilization  as  ruined  homes  and 
over-flowing  jails.  Protect  the  mines?  Yes!  But 
what  is  all  the  iron  and  coal,  silver  and  gold,  worth  in 
comparison  to  the  health,  happiness  and  manhood  of 
the  nation,  all  of  which  are  menaced  and  lessened  by  the 
use  of  liquor.  Every  man  and  woman  ought  to  pro- 
test vigorously  against  the  present  general  tendency 
to  ignore  or  behttle  the  Drink  Curse. 

But  why  this  indifference  to  the  appall- 

Indifference  • -w-x  • i /~^  i • i_ 

Wiu  Vanish  Unnk  Curser  Certain  reasons  are  ob- 

vious,  among  them  these:  (1)  The  evil  is 
of  such  long  standing  and  general  familiarity,  that  it 
has  dulled  the  sensibilities  of  the  public  respecting  it. 
(2)  The  occasional  indulgence  in  liquor  by  many  good 
people  blinds  them  to  the  magnitude  of  the  evil.  (3) 
Vested  interests  play  an  important  part.  In  Great 
Britain,  and  other  countries,  many  noblemen  and  even 
clergymen,  are  stockholders  in  Breweries  and  Distill- 
eries. In  America,  growers  of  grain,  owners  of  proper- 
ties rented  for  saloons,  employers  of  the  Liquor  Inter- 
ests, newspapers  which  receive  large  sums  for  liquor 
advertisements,  politicians  who  use  these  interests  for 
partisan  purposes, — all  these  are  blinded  by  self-interest. 
(4)  Many  others  keep  silent  because  they  fear  the 
condemnation  of  public  opinion.  They  do  not  wish 
to  be  set  down  as  temperance  cranks  and  fanatics.  At 
this  point,  we  may  well  refer  to  the  plea  made  to  his 
fellow  doctors  by  Sir  Thomas  Barlow,  M.  D.,  (to  whom 

[50] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 


reference  has  just  been  made) : “Now,  I do  beg  of  you 
to  use  your  influence  with  anybody  who  has  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  he  can  do  better  without  intoxi- 
cants, as  I have  for  a good  many  years  past,  and  implore 
them  to  have  the  courage  to  say  so,  whatever  the  con- 
sequences may  be.”  London  Address.  1913. 

There  are,  however,  two  reasons  more  prominent 
than  these.  I.  The  ancient  superstition  that  alcohol 
is  a life-giver  still  holds  the  multitude  in  thrall.  People 
are  still  in  bonds  to  this  destructive  error.  And  so  long 
as  the  public  thinks  of  liquor  as,  on  the  whole,  not  only 
an  innocent  but  a helpful  beverage,  the  evils  of  drunken- 
ness will  be  tolerated.  Emancipation  can  come  only 
as  the  pagan  superstition  is  destroyed,  root  and  branch. 
A most  vigorous  campaign  of  wide  and  varied  education 
is  needed  to  make  people  see  and  feel  that  liquor  is  a 
life-destroyer,  which  always  deceives,  so  that  moderate 
drinking  is  harmful.  Much  is  being  done  in  this 
direction  but  still  more  ought  to  be  done. 

II.  Drunkenness  has  long  been  accepted  as  an  inevi- 
table evil,  due  to  an  inherent  appetite,  which  can  be 
curbed  but  not  destroyed.  The  Drink  Curse  has  been 
viewed  very  much  as  our  ancestors  regarded  consump- 
tion: a mysterious  visitation  of  providence.  Such  a 
view  of  any  human  evil  necessarily  precludes  all  efforts, 
not  only  toward  cure  but  also  prevention.  We  realize 
to-day  that  appetite  does  not  play  a very  important 
part  in  the  matter.  Also,  we  come  to  see  that  this  evil 
is  no  more  inevitable  than  consumption.  When  the 
public  mind  is  educated  and  aroused  respecting  Drink, 
as  it  now  is  respecting  tuberculosis,  the  curse  can  be 
stamped  out  as  this  disease  is  being  controlled  at  pres- 
ent. Science  is  as  clear  in  its  teachings  about  alcohol 
as  it  is  in  reference  to  the  White  Plague.  When,  there- 
fore, we  see  this  evil  in  its  real  nature  and  true  propor- 

[51] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


tion,  a decisive  victory  will  soon  follow.  To  this  end 
we  need  widespread  and  energetic  agitation. 

The  greatest  problem  which  confronts  civilization 
today  is  the  Drink  Curse,  which  is  the  most  serious  ob- 
stacle that  stands  in  the  way  of  the  Christian  Churches, 
and  to  destroy  this  gigantic  evil  will  require  a more 
heroic  exercise  of  Christian  faith  than  that  which  over- 
threw the  pagan  altars  of  the  ancient  world.  And  in 
this  connection  we  find  encouragement.  In  Julian’s 
time  (about  A.  D.  361)  the  pagan  enemies  of  Christian- 
ity were  apparently  victorious.  But  the  spectacular 
exhibitions  were  only  the  masks  of  death.  So  too,  the 
Liquor  Interests  seem  invincible  today  to  many  people 
without  vision;  but  the  doom  of  the  saloon  has  struck: 
and  by  the  light  of  truth,  and  by  the  help  of  God’s 
grace,  the  deliverance  of  humanity  from  the  Drink 
Superstition  shall,  ere  long,  be  achieved. 

No  more  hopeful  sign  of  this  coming  deliverance  has 
recently  appeared  than  the  editorial  in  the  National 
Liquor  Dealers’  Journal  (Sept.  10,  1913).  After  re- 
ferring to  the  recent  progress  of  Prohibition,  the  edi- 
torial continues : 

“To  us  there  is,  The  handwriting  on  the  wall,  and  its  interpretation 
spells  doom.  For  this  the  liquor  business  is  to  blame,  it  seems  in- 
capable of  learning  any  lesson  of  advancement  or  any  motive  but  profit. 
To  perpetuate  itself,  it  has  formed  aUiances  with  the  slums  that  repel 
all  conscientious  and  patriotic  citizens.  It  deliberately  aids  the  most 
corrupt  political  powers  and  backs  with  all  of  its  resources  the  most 
unworthy  men,  the  most  corrupt  and  recreant  officials.  It  does  not 
aid  the  purification  of  municipal,  state,  or  national  administrations. 
, . . There  are  billions  of  property  involved,  and  an  industry  of 
great  employing  and  taxpaying  ability;  but  when  the  people  decide 
that  the  truth  is  being  told  about  the  alcoholic  liquor  trade,  the  money 
value  will  not  count,  for  conscience  aroused  puts  the  value  of  a man 
above  all  other  things.” 


[52] 


A QUESTION  OF  PROPORTION 

It  is  surely  only  a question  of  a very  few  years,  when 
this  problem  will  be  generally  seen  in  its  true  propor- 
tions; and  when  men  shall  come  to  realize  its  vast 
magnitude  and  its  many  evil  influences  upon  human 
life,  then  its  hour  of  doom  will  have  struck.  It  is  hope- 
fully significant  to  learn  from  such  an  editorial  that  far- 
sighted liquor  men  themselves  begin  to  appreciate  this 
fact. 


“The  solution  of  the  alcohol  question  is  urgent;  It  allows  less  of 
postponement  than  the  solution  of  all  other  questions.  An  unjust 
distribution  of  property  can  afterwards  be  readjusted,  but  when  the 
whole  nation  is  impregnated  with  hereditary  suffering,  an  endless 
amount  of  evil  and  misery  is  produced  which  can  never  afterwards 
be  remedied.  The  solution  of  all  other  questions  will  be  greatly 
promoted  by  the  solution  of  the  alcohol  question.”  Prof.  Gustav 
von  Bunge,  M.  D.,  University  of  Basel,  1893. 

“ The  reasons  why  I have  no  use  for  alcoholic  beverages  on  sea  or 
on  shore  are  so  numerous  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  detail  them 
all.  My  standpoint  is  simply  that  liquor  is  unnecessary  and  bad. 
It  is  a help  only  to  thieves  and  robbers.  ...  I have  seen  men 
robbed  in  many  ways,  but  they  have  been  able  by  the  help  of  God  to 
wipe  out  any  lasting  results  of  such  transient  losses.  But  the  rob- 
beries of  alcohol  are  irremediable.”  Dr.  Wilfred  T.  Grenfell.  The 
Apostle  to  Labrador,  1907. 

“ I know  very  well  that  the  pleasure  of  drinking  is  an  old  heritage 
of  the  Germans,  but  we  must,  by  self-discipline,  deliver  ourselves  from 
that  evil.  I can  assure  you  that  in  the  course  of  my  reign  of  twenty- 
two  years,  I have  observed  from  experience  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  crimes  which  have  been  appealed  to  me  for  decision  ought  to  be 
reported  as  the  results  of  the  alcohol  e%'il.”  Emperor  William  of 
Germany,  Address  to  Naval  Cadets,  Nov.  21,  1910. 

“A  great  weight  of  evidence  indicates  Drink  as  the  most  potent 
and  universal  factor  in  bringing  about  pauperism.”  Report  of  the 
Royal  Commission  on  the  Poor  Law  (England),  p.  221,  1909. 

“A  calm  and  critical  commission  reported  5,000  hungry  and  10,000 
underfed  children  attending  the  public  schools  of  Chicago.  And  the 
major  causes  of  this  suffering  were  traceable  to  the  seductions  of  the 
nasty,  unwholesome,  unsocial  saloons.  ...  It  was  easily 
demonstrated  that  a painful  number  of  these  children  were  hungry 
because  their  bread-money  had  been  converted  into  beer-money.  The 
brewers  and  distillers  of  Chicago  had  deposited  in  the  banks  the  money 
that  should  have  nourished  the  pale,  pathetic  school  children.” 
Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones.  “ On  the  Firing  Line  in  the  Battle  for  Sobrie  y.” 
1910. 

“A  large  proportion  of  men  and  a still  larger  proportion  of  women 
owe  their  initial  debauch  to  the  influence  of  alcohol.  Perhaps  more 
than  any  other  agency,  alcohol  relaxes  the  morals  while  it  stimulates 
the  sexual  impulse.”  Social  Diseases  and  Marriage  (1904),  p.  355. 
By  Dr.  Prince  A.  Morrow.  Bellevue  Hospital  M^ical  College. 


[54] 


'opyriKhl  ioi<),  liy  Sciciitilic  I'ciiipcranci’  l''r<lriation,  Mass 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 

The  wrecks  and  derelicts  of  human  society  are  a 
vast  number,  and  they  represent  an  appalling  mass  of 
vice  and  misery.  We  can  only  make  an  approximately 
accurate  estimate  of  the  number  of  defectives,  depend- 
ents, and  delinquents  in  the  United  States.  Those  in 
institutions  can  be  easily  computed.  The  records  teU 
us  the  numbers  arrested  for  various  offences  but  not 
sent  to  institutions:  many  pay  fines  and  many  are  not 
convicted  though  a large  proportion  of  these  are  prob- 
ably guilty.  But  there  are  many  practically  insane 
or  feeble  minded  who  never  come  into  any  census  report, 
state  or  national.  Great  numbers  are  partially  relieved 
of  the  sufferings  due  to  poverty  by  private  charity  and 
so  go  uncoimted.  There  is  a great  deal  of  crime  which 
never  comes  into  any  report,  because  arrests  are  never 
made.  Statistics  of  crime  are  notoriously  unsatis- 
factoi^,  because  the  enforcement  of  laws  varies  radi- 
cally, as  we  go  from  one  community  to  another.  Again, 
for  every  arrest  for  drunkenness  there  are  many  cases 
that  necessarily  pass  unnoticed  by  the  police.  So  that, 
however  careful  the  calculation,  it  is  impossible  to 
exclude  all  duplication.  Nevertheless,  the  census 
totals  are  obviously  far  below  the  real  facts,  taking  all 
these  classes  together. 

The  following  statements  present  these  matters 
with  approximate  accuracy  for  the  year  1910; 

[55] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


I.  Convicts  in  2,823  Institutions,  Jan.  1 112,881 

Committed  in  1909  479,256 

All  offences  from  vagrancy  to  murder. 

II.  Insane  in  372  Institutions 187,454 

III.  Children  in  1,152  Orphanages  and  Homes 107,401 

IV.  Adults  and  Children  in  1,442  Homes 121,876 

Received  during  1909 788,691 

V.  Juvenile  Delinquents  in  1,337  Institutions 23,034 

VI.  Feeble-minded  in  Institutions 20,751 

If  same  proportion  in  the  Nation  as  in  Massachu- 
setts (See  Menace  of  the  Feeble-minded  in 
Mass.,  1913,  p.  4),  the  total  number  would  be  300,000 
VH.  Arrests  for  Drunkenness:  Massachusetts  (1913) . . . 100,000 

At  same  rate  for  the  Nation 3,000,000 


As  police  policies  are  so  different,  such  ar- 
rests greatly  vary  in  different  cities.  The 
re-arrests  are  not  nearly  as  numerous  as  the 


“Drunks”  who  escape  arrest. 

VIII.  Paupers  in  2,412  Institutions 84,266 

A vast  army  receive  outdoor  relief.  In 
Massachusetts  (1912):  52,537 

At  same  rate  for  the  Nation 1,500,000 


Nearly  10,000  Institutions  including  jails! 

Over  6,000,000  Individuals! 

A careful  writer  in  the  New  York  Sun,  a few  years 
ago,  made  the  following  calculation  respecting  the 
Charities  of  the  State  of  New  York:  Yalue  of  chari- 
table properties,  $103,000,000.00;  annual  cost  of  main- 
tenance, $23,000,000.00;  the  number  of  persons  helped, 
75,000  in  institutions;  outdoor  rehef  given  to  758,000 
persons.  If  we  multiply  these  figures  by  ten,  we  shall 
have  some  idea  of  the  burden  of  poverty  upon  our 
nation. 

To  assert  that  the  facts  here  presented 
AppaUing^°  make  an  appalling  situation  is  obviously  to 
indulge  in  mild  language.  Just  the  mere 

[56] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


aggregate  in  numbers,  this  vast  mass  of  human  wieked- 
ness  and  wretchedness,  is  a sad  spectacle.  Put  them 
in  single  file  and  they  would  reach  2,000  miles ! Stand 
them  together,  allowing  a square  yard  for  every  indi- 
vidual, and  they  would  cover  a territory  of  over  a 
thousand  acres!  The  drain  upon  the  resources  of  the 
race  due  to  them  is  immense:  Millions  of  dollars  for 
the  support  of  these  institutions  above  what  inmates 
earn;  millions  of  days’  labor  lost  every  week,  so  that, 
instead  of  adding  to  the  resources  of  the  world,  they 
both  burden  society  and  also  subtract  from  its  life 
forces;  thousands  of  officials  and  care-takers  constantly 
taken  from  the  world’s  work  in  order  to  protect  society 
from  them  or  attend  to  their  wants;  rivers  of  tears  and 
innumerable  heartaches  spread  through  millions  of 
homes  by  these  abnormal  individuals. 

Careless  persons  often  “point  with  pride,”  to  our 
cnaritable,  penal,  and  reformatory  institutions,  as 
evidence  of  our  high  civilization.  But  at  best  they 
are  only  necessary  evils.  They  represent,  not  so  much 
the  success,  as  the  failure  of  civilization.  To  boast 
of  them  is  like  the  general  of  an  army  boasting  that 
one  fifth  of  his  soldiers  are  in  the  hospital!  So  long 
as  these  classes  exist,  we  must  have  such  institutions, 
and  their  wise  and  humane  management  is  a distinct 
credit  to  church  and  state.  But  the  supreme  task  is, 
not  to  care  kindly  for  these  abnormal  classes,  but  to 
diminish  their  number  and  prevent  their  production 
as  far  as  possibleTI  Here  is  the  problem  of  preventive 
philanthropy:  To  abolish  the  causes  which  produce 
dependents,  defectives,  and  delinquents.  It  is  just 
here  that  the  importance  of  the  Drink  Curse  comes  into 
view.  To  lessen  the  use  of  liquors  is  the  greatest 
agency  in  preventive  philanthropy.  The  relation  of 
the  Drink  Habit  to  insanity,  juvenile  delinquency, 

[57] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


and  feeble-mindedness  is  very  close,  but  the  discussion 
will  here  be  limited,  practically  to  Crime  and  Poverty. 

2!here  are  criminals  who  seldom  or  never 
drink.  And  when  they  do  drink  it  is 
largely  to  brace  themselves  for  the  criminal 
action.  In  such  cases  liquor  has  little  responsibility 
for  the  evil  done.  It  is  common  for  convicts  to  claim 
that  Drink  caused  their  downfall,  when  such  was  not 
the  chief  cause,  as  stated,  this  plea  being  made  to  gain 
sympathy. 

But  when  all  these  facts  are  admitted  and  all  due 
allowance  is  made  for  them,  it  nevertheless  remains 
true  that  a very  large  majority  of  criminals  are  such, 
primarily,  owing  to  the  Drink  Habit,  either  in  them- 
selves or  their  parents.  The  totally-abstinent  criminal 
is  very  rare,  usually  a man  of  considerable  intelligence, 
who,  as  a rule,  commits  offences  against  property. 
And  even  the  cold-blooded,  temperate  criminal,  is, 
in  many  cases,  where  he  is,  because  of  the  bad  inheri- 
tance in  environment  or  nature,  largely  due  to  parental 
drinking.  When  liquor  is  used  to  brace  for  criminal 
action,  intemperance  is  probably  the  backlying,  if 
obscure,  cause  in  a great  many  cases.  The  appeals 
of  convicts  for  sympathy, — “I  did  not  do  it  but  the 
whisky  in  me,” — are  usually  true  to  some  extent,  if 
not  exactly  as  stated.  They  would  not  have  been 
angels  without  the  liquor,  but  the  liquor  did  give 
mastery  to  the  devil  in  them. 

In  no  other  state  has  the  relation  of  Drink  to  Crime 
been  more  carefully  studied  than  in  Massachusetts. 
The  summary  made  in  House  Document,  No.  1390, 
“Drunkenness  in  Massachusetts,”  1910,  is  a very 
careful  piece  of  work.  The  following  paragraph  is 
interesting  and  impressive; 

[58] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


“In  the  State  of  Massachusetts  in  1908  there  were  86,365  arrests 
for  a single  ofiFence,  drunkenness,  which  was  60  per  cent,  of  the  total 
number  of  arrests  made  in  the  state  [some  60,000  arrests  for  drunken- 
ness in  Boston  in  1913!].  Sentence  was  pronounced  on  33,453  for 
the  same  offence,  which  was  51  per  cent,  of  all  sentences.  In  the 
same  year  20,779  imprisonments  were  made  within  the  state  for 
drunkenness,  which  was  65  per  cent,  of  all  imprisonments.  But  the 
problem  of  drunkenness  extends  beyond  the  arrests  and  imprison- 
ments on  that  particular  charge,  for  on  one  hand  hundreds  of  drunk- 
ards are  never  arrested,  while  on  the  other  hand  a large  majority  of 
prisoners  sentenced  on  other  charges — murder,  theft,  vagrancy  and 
crimes  against  sex — are  intemperate.  The  Board  of  Prison  Com- 
missioners of  Massachusetts  publish  the  statement  that  30,281,  or 
94  per  cent.,  of  the  32,077  cases  impdsoned  for  all  crimes  in  1908  are 
intemperate  by  habit.  At  the  State  Prison,  where  the  worst  criminals 
of  the  state  were  sent,  out  of  191  prisoners  committed  during  the 
year,  85,  or  44  per  cent.,  were  recorded  as  intemperate;  at  the  Massa- 
chusetts Reformatory  for  men,  30  per  cent.;  at  the  Reformatory 
Prison  for  women,  57  per  cent.;  at  the  State  Farm,  100  per  cent.; 
and  in  all  jails  and  houses  of  correction  in  the  state,  96  per  cent. 
Thus  the  major  part  of  the  clientele  of  our  whole  prison  system  con- 
sists of  men  and  women  either  committed  for  drunkenness  or  for 
crimes  to  which  intemperance  may  have  been  contributory.  The 
problem  of  drunkenness  is  thus  urgent  to  citizen  and  tax  payer.”  p.  8. 

In  this  connection  also,  a few  words  from  the  same 
Report  on  the  cost  of  drunkenness  to  the  state  are 
worthy  of  our  attention. 

“The  cost  of  drunkenness  to  the  Commonwealth  is  to  be  estimated, 
not  merely  in  terms  of  money  paid  by  tax  payers  for  the  arrest  and 
reincarceration  of  inebriates  [$1,400,000.00  were  so  spent  by  the  state 
(1907-1908)  on  prisoners,  94  per  cent,  of  whom  were  recorded  as 
intemperate  in  habit] ; it  is  to  be  estimated  also  in  terms  of  the  economic 
loss  to  the  community,  when  several  thousand  able-bodied  men,  at 
the  very  age  when  their  productive  power  is  greatest,  lose  days  and 
weeks  of  work  through  uncured  drunkenness  and  through  unem- 
ployment caused  by  prison  sentence.  Intermittent  and  varied  sen- 
tences force  even  the  capable  out  of  the  habit  of  productive  labor. 

[59] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Further,  the  inebriate  while  at  large  and  uncured  often  endangers 
life  and  property,  endangers  public  morality  through  crime  against 
sex,  and  perhaps  leaves  to  future  generations  the  heritage  of  aban- 
doned or  degenerate  offspring.”  p.  21. 

The  annual  meeting  of  the  League  of  the  Rights  of 
Man  was  held  in  May,  1912,  at  HatTe,  France.  A 
notable  paper  was  read  by  Dr.  Sicard  de  Plauzoles  on 
“ Legislative  Remedies  against  Alcoholism,” — the  term 
alcoholism  being  used  in  France  to  describe  all  the 
evils  due  to  alcoholic  drinks.  Dr.  Plauzoles  presented 
the  following  facts  in  reference  to  certain  crimes:  “Of 
every  100  French  murderers,  52  were  intemperate;  of 
every  100  incendiaries,  59  were  intemperate;  of  every 
100  vagabonds,  70  were  intemperate;  of  everj"^  100 
assaults  to  commit  bodily  harm,  90  were  committed  by 
intemperate  persons;  of  every  100  acts  of  violence 
against  the  person,  88  were  committed  while  the  offender 
was  actually  drunk.” 

Probably  the  most  weighty  recent  testimony  at  this 
point  was  given  by  Lord  Loreburn,  then  (1910)  Lord 
Chancellor  of  England,  in  an  address  at  Westminster. 
He  said  (Drink  and  Social  Reform,  p.  7) : 

“In  my  hearing  in  the  House  of  Lords  about  a year  ago  or  more. 
Lord  Gorell,  a distinguished  President  of  the  Probate  and  Divorce 
Division,  said:  ‘You  might,  if  it  were  not  for  drink,  almost  shut 
up  the  doors  of  the  divorce  court.’  Here  is  what  the  Lord  Chief 
Justice  of  England  (Lord  Alverstone)  said  last  year;  ‘After  forty 
years’  experience  at  the  bar  and  ten  years  as  a judge,  I know  as  a 
fact  that  90  per  cent,  of  the  crime  of  this  country  depends  upon 
intemperance.’  That  was  last  year.  Then  I wrote  this  month  to  a 
friend  of  mine,  one  of  His  Majesty’s  judges,  Mr.  Justice  Darling,  an 
experienced  judge  in  the  criminal  court,  and  I asked  him  if  he  would 
tell  me  what  he  thought  about  it  and  if  he  would  give  me  leave  to 
quote  him.  He  wrote  back  this:  ‘You  may  say  this  from  me — that 
of  the  crimes  of  violence,  including  especially  offences  agednst  women 

[60] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


and  children,  almost  all  of  them,  so  far  as  they  come  before  me,  are 
directly  the  result  of  excessive  drinking.  Beyond  this,  a large  pro- 
portion of  the  crimes  in  dishonesty  are  due  to  the  same  cause,  but  are 
not  so  immediately  connected  with  it.’  Is  it  not  an  extraordinary 
thing  that  when  these  facts  are  not  disputed — and  they  are  not  dis- 
puted— and  when  there  is  a philanthropic  spirit  throughout  the  land, 
a sense  of  the  necessity  for  ameliorating  the  physical,  moral,  and 
mental  condition  of  our  countrymen  and  countrywomen,  is  it  not 
extraordinary  that  in  those  conditions  we  should  have  the  difficulty 
that  we  have  in  passing  the  smallest  reform  connected  with  the  licens- 
ing system?  ” 

Hon.  William  N.  Gemmill,  judge  of  the  Court  of 
Domestic  Relations,  Chicago  (having  jurisdiction  of 
divorces),  recently  stated  that  46  per  cent,  of  the  5,232 
cases  coming  before  him  during  the  year  were  clearly 
due  to  “excessive  drinking,” — while  in  a great  number 
of  other  cases  it  must  have  been  a contributing  cause. 
Chicago  Examiner,  Aug.  11,  1913.  With  such  state- 
ments before  us  it  is  certainly  not  necessary  to  present 
further  evidence. 

[The  problem  of  poverty  is  very  complex. 
It  has  many  roots  and  many  phases.  The 
relation  of  Drink  to  poverty  is  a much 
larger  subject  then  the  relation  of  drink  to  pauperism. 
For  every  pauper  made  by  Drink  there  are  a dozen 
burdened  by  it  with  extreme  want.  But  there  are 
many  deserving  poor  who  are  destitute  from  no  fault 
of  their  own,  their  condition  being  due  to  disease,  to 
accident,  to  the  wrong  doing  of  others.  If  not  abste- 
mious themselves,  the  real  cause  is  in  no  sense  due  to 
liquor. 

However,  there  are  many  cases  of  poverty  appar- 
ently due  to  old  age,  disease,  indolence,  or  incompetence 
where  the  ultimate  cause  has  been  the  Drink  Habit  in 
themselves  or  their  ancestry.  If  we  look  below  the 

[61] 


Drink  and 
Poverty 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


surface  or  go  far  enough  back,  we  find  the  beer  mug  or 
the  whisky  bottle.  Born  with  a tired  feeling  and 
therefore  lazy,  because  the  father  was  a toper.  “ Poor 
judgment”  and  therefore  always  in  want;  the  entail  of 
ancestral  dissipation.  “General  inefficiency”  is  often 
only  another  name  for  the  degeneracy  of  life  due  to 
parental  indulgence.  The  racial  defect  is  e\’ident 
where  the  connection  with  the  use  of  liquor  is  obscure, 
but  it  is  there  as  a serious  handicap.  The  disease 
which  frequently  does  not  seem  to  have  any  relation 
to  liquor,  is,  after  all,  frequently  directly  or  indirectly, 
the  result  of  intemperance  somewhere. 

It  is  obvious  that  there  is  a very  real  and  close  con- 
nection between  destitution  and  the  use  of  liquor. 
The  leading  authorities  have  placed  the  percentage  of 
pauperism  directly  due  to  intemperance  from  40  to  75. 
To  this  must  be  added  the  indirect  influence  in  pro- 
ducing want  among  the  poor  in  general.  As  a com- 
petent English  authority,  Mr.  John  Newton,  has 
recently  stated:  “It  would  require  an  absolute  shut- 
ting of  the  eyes  to  our  daily  experience  to  say  that 
drunkenness  is  not  a powerful,  constant,  widespread, 
and  deciding  factor  in  the  production  of  an  enormous 
amount  of  poverty  and  pauperism.  And  of  much 
drinking  which  falls  short  of  drunkenness  that  finds 
its  records  in  police  statistics,  the  same  may  be  saidj^ 
Our  National  Drink  Bill  (1909),  p.  22. 

The  recent  investigation  of  London  poorhouses 
presented  these  facts:  1,433  cases  were  investigated, 
867  being  men  (387  skilled  and  480  unskilled)  and  566 
women.  Of  the  387  skilled  men,  300  showed  evidence 
of  drink,  93  being  complete  drunkards.  Of  the  480 
unskilled  men,  318  showed  evidence  of  drink,  72  being 
drunkards;  293  of  the  566  women  showed  evidence  of 
drink,  of  whom  80  were  drunkards.  The  following  is 

[62] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


the  summary  of  the  replies  from  445  parishes  in  the 
diocese  of  Peterborough,  England:  “The  chief  moral 
cause  of  poverty  in  town  and  country  alike  is  said  to  be 
excessive  drinking,  want  of  thrift,  and  bad  management, 
often  early  and  improvident  marriages,  or  gambling 
accompanied  by  drink.  In  fact,  in  many  parishes 
the  reply  on  this  point  is  practically  that  what  little 
poverty  exists  is  almost  solely  due  to  the  drinking 
habits  of  the  few  whose  families  suffer  in  consequence. 
Even  when  there  is  little  actual  drunkenness  the  pro- 
portion of  weekly  wages  regularly  taken  to  the  public- 
house  is  said  to  keep  many  families  always  poor.  ” 

The  subject  has  not  been  as  widely  or  as  carefully 
studied  in  America  as  in  England,  but  so  far  as  we 
have  gone  the  conclusions  reached  are  similar.  Prof. 
Henry  W.  Farnum  of  Yale  University,  working  for 
three  years  at  the  head  of  a select  group  of  assistants, 
under  the  direction  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  came  to 
the  conclusion  (Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Prob- 
lem, p.28, 1899),  that  37  per  cent,  of  the  poverty  found  in 
almshouses  was  due  to  Drink  and  45  per  cent,  of  the 
cases  of  destitute  children  found  in  certain  institutions. 
The  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Statistics  (Report  for 
1895)  placed  the  figure  at  48  per  cent.,  and  both  these 
estimates  are  generally  considered  too  low.  That  is  to 
say,  the  statistics  used  necessarily  present  only  the 
more  obvious  results  of  Drink  in  the  production,  not 
so  much  of  poverty  in  general,  as  the  pauperism  with 
which  the  state  has  to  deal. 

Investigations  in  some  German  cities  present  about  the 
same  results.  The  percentages,  however  vary  greatly, 
obviously  due  somewhat  to  the  different  conditions  in 
different  localities,  but  probably  more  to  the  different 
methods  of  those  studying  the  subject.  Halle  charges 
one-third  of  the  cost  of  poverty  to  Drink,  Hamburg  over 

[63] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


half,  Geneva  as  much  as  nine-tenths.  A majority  of 
German  cities  place  the  amount  about  half  way  be- 
tween these  extremes. 

In  the  same  line  is  the  following  conclusion,  taken 
from  the  report  of  an  important  committee  presented 
at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Medical  Association 
in  1912:  After  calling  attention  to  the  appalling 
increase  (330  per  cent.)  of  the  insane  and  feeble-minded 
in  the  United  States  in  the  past  fifty  years,  the  com- 
mittee asserts:  “Practically  all  of  the  latter  increase 
[the  feeble-minded  who  contribute  so  much  to  pauper- 
ism] is  due  to  the  chronic  and  excessive  use  of  alcohol 
in  one  form  and  another  and  to  narcotics.  ” No  stronger 
testimony  could  be  found  to  prove  that  Drink  is  the 
chief  cause  of  poverty. 

Some  celebrated  authorities  on  Social 
Poverty:  Science  hold  that  shiftlessness,  sensuality. 

Cause  or  . . , . , , . , , 

Effect?  criminality,  and  intemperance  are  phases 
or  outcroppings  of  the  same  fundamental 
or  back-lying  degeneracy;  so  that  it  is  erroneous  to 
single  out  Drink  as  the  prime  cause  which  produces 
the  others.  The  contention  is  that,  instead  of  being 
the  “big  devil,”  pushing  men  into  pauperism,  lust,  and 
crime.  Drink  is  simply  an  associate  evil  along  with 
these  other  evils,  all  being  products  of  a common 
depravity.  The  relation  is  concomitant,  not  causal. 
This  was  practically  the  \’iew  held  by  Dugdale  in  his 
remarkable  little  book.  The  Jukes  (1877),  p.  39. 

The  problem  is,  indeed,  complex  and  the  interrela- 
tions are  often  so  intricate  that  it  is  difficult  to  decide 
which  is  cause  and  which  is  effect  or  whether  all  are 
related  consequences.  Sometimes  it  looks  as  though 
a man  drinks,  because  he  is  lazy,  or  sensual,  or  criminal. 
Again,  it  is  clear  that  a man  is  indolent,  commits  crime, 
and  gives  himself  to  lust  solely  because  he  drinks 

[64] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 

liquor.  The  more  careful  researches  of  recent  years, 
however,  throw  much  light  upon  this  subject,  and,  on 
the  whole  the  facts  tend  to  center  responsibility  largely 
upon  Drink: 

While  a man  may  today  seem  to  drink  because 
sensual  or  criminal,  nevertheless  if  we  go  to  his  ancestry 
we  soon  find  that  it  was  the  use  of  liquor  which  imposed 
a degenerate  inheritance  upon  him.  So  that,  in  reality, 
the  indictment  against  alcohol  stands.  Associated 
Charity  workers  usually  report  a smaller  percentage  of 
cases  due  to  Drink,  than  many  other  authorities, 
because  they  look  chiefiy  at  the  obvious  causes  of  want. 
But  back  of  the  apparent  cause  often  lies  the  influence 
of  the  saloon,  j 

(2)  ^The  fact  that  alcohol  inhibits  or  paralyzes  the 
higher  faculties  and  functions,  leaving  the  animal 
impulses  inflamed  and  unchecked,  clearly  shows  that 
it  is  the  real  cause  in  a majority  of  cases  of  sensuality 
and  criminality.  We  do  not  have  to  take  the  victim’s 
word  for  it:  the  truth  is  obvious.  The  direct  psy- 
chological and  physiological  effect  of  Drink  is  to  prepare 
the  way  for  vice  and  crime^j 

(3)  Ijhe  institution  in  which  drinking  is  carried  on, 
the  saloon,  is  mightily  productive  of  all  other  evils. 
Degeneracy  is  here  institutionalized.  Here  center 
the  waste  of  wages,  the  low  associations,  the  animal 
impulses,  the  injury  to  efficiency,  the  menace  to  health, 
which  combine  to  produce  pauperism,  vice  and  crime. 
If  it  were  not  for  Drink,  there  would  be  no  such  inju- 
rious institution  as  the  saloon. 

(4)  Where  it  may  not  actually  cause.  Drink  does 
aggravate  and  intensify  many  other  evils.  It  may  not 
directly  give  a man  pneumonia,  but  having  it,  his 
Drink  Habit  makes  him  sicker  and  prevents  his  recov- 
ery. It  may  not  be  wholly  responsible  for  a man’s 

[65] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


poverty,  but  it  makes  it  impossible  for  him  to  shake  off 
ruinous  want.  A sober  man  may  commit  a crime  and 
only  brace  himself  with  liquor  to  do  it,  but  thousands 
commit  crimes  simply  because  intoxicated 
The  problem  of  human  want  is  evidently  complex,  as 
has  been  stated,  but  the  claim  recently  made  by  some 
writers,  that  intemperance  is  largely  due  to  poverty,  is, 
in  the  main,  not  only  erroneous,  but  exceedingly  harm- 
ful to  the  cause  of  temperance,  and  also  detrimental 
to  the  best  interests  of  mankind.  These  students  of 
social  conditions  have  made  a diagnosis  that  is  not 
only  superficial,  but  injurious.  They  assert  that  most 
people  drink  chiefly  because  they  are  poor:  they  are 
not  poor  simply  because  they  drink.  They  point  to 
the  human  wrecks  in  the  saloon,  and  tell  us  that  these 
persons  are  there  to  drown  their  miseries  in  the  cup. 
They  also  tell  us  that  the  family  in  wretched  hovel  or 
squalid  tenement  is  in  distress,  not  primarily  through 
intemperance,  but  because  the  parents  have  been 
driven  to  liquor  by  their  poverty. 

These  writers  have  mistaken  the  late 
and  incidental  condition  of  these  lives  for 
the  real  cause,  which  hes  farther  back  and 
is  radically  different.  It  is,  indeed,  often  true  that 
later  on  in  life  people  resort  to  Drink  to  drown  their 
misery:  at  this  late  stage  they  do  drink  because  poor. 
But  this  is  not  the  whole  story,  nor  is  it  the  important 
part  of  the  story.  When  we  go  back  to  early  life,  when 
we  touch  the  formative  period  and  the  determining 
factor,  we  find  that  the  young  man  did  not  begin  to 
drink  because  poor.  He  first  drank  because  it  was  the 
custom,  because  he  enjoyed  the  companionship  and 
the  exhilaration, — perhaps  to  gratify  an  appetite, 
though  this  probably  plays  a smaller  part  than  is 
generally  supposed.  Probably  ninety-nine  in  every 

[66] 


A Common 
Mistake 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


hundred  of  those  who  become  drunkards  start  the 
habit  without  any  reference  whatever  to  financial 
conditions.  It  is  only  late  in  life,  when  want  has  over- 
taken them,  that  they  drink  because  they  are  poor. 

The  appeal  to  life  at  this  point  is  decisive.  If  any 
one  will  visit  the  places  where  young  men  congregate 
to  drink  liquor,  he  will  realize  at  once  the  obvious  fact 
that  practically  none  of  these  persons  are  there  because 
poor.  They  are  not  even  there  simply  because  drinking 
is  the  cheapest  form  of  amusement.  The  time  will 
come  when  some  of  them  will  continue  to  drink  because 
in  want;  but  even  in  such  cases  the  poverty  is  only  the 
incidental  factor,  and  at  this  stage  more  the  result 
than  the  real  cause.  A person  with  wide  acquaint- 
ance among  the  poor  and  intemperate  would  have  to 
search  a long  time  to  find  an  individual  who  began  to 
drink  solely  because  destitute.  There  are  such,  but 
they  are  very  rare.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
are  poor,  because  they  drink,  crowd  upon  us  at  every 
corner.  Again,  let  any  one  investigate  the  history  of 
the  score  of  drunkards  whom  he  may  know.  Prob- 
ably not  in  a single  case  did  poverty  have  anything  to 
do  with  the  beginning  of  the  habit.  Still,  again,  how 
many  cases  have  any  of  us  known  where  loss  of  fortune 
has  driven  men  to  intemperance?  Very  few,  indeed. 
But  we  do  know  very  many  instances  where  too  much 
money  has  made  young  men  drunkards,  who,  long 
afterward,  probably  drank  because  poor,  although 
their  poverty  really  came  as  a direct  result  of  using 
liquor. 

A distinguished  physician  who  for  forty  years  has 
studied  several  thousands  of  cases  of  inebriety,  one  of 
the  pioneers  in  the  treatment  of  inebriety  as  a disease, 
informs  me  that  superficial  observation  has  led  to  the 
view  here  controverted.  The  fact  is,  according  to  his 

[67] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


wide  experience,  that  the  social  “derelict,”  who  appar- 
ently drinks  because  poor,  and  of  whom  it  is  commonly 
said  that  he  began  to  drink  when  he  lost  his  position 
or  property,  is,  as  a rule,  one  who  has  been  secretly 
drinking  for  a long  time.  He  had  been  a quiet  tippler 
for  years,  concealing  the  fact  from  his  friends,  perhaps 
even  from  his  family.  What  misfortune  did  was  not 
so  much  to  drive  him  to  drink  as  to  cause  him  to  drop 
the  mask  and  indulge  openly  and  more  frequently.  In 
the  time  of  discouragement  the  man  became  an  open 
drinker,  but  he  began  the  habit  long  before.  And 
those  secret  indulgences  were  largely  the  real  cause  of 
his  downfall.  It  is  the  opinion  of  this  eminent  doctor 
that  men  of  life-long  sobriety  seldom  resort  to  Drink 
when  misfortune  overtakes  them. 

Those  social  scientists,  whose  views  on  this  subject 
are  here  opposed,  stop  short  with  the  wreckage  late 
in  life,  but  they  fail  to  go  back  to  the  real  cause:  their 
diagnosis  is  false  and  harmful.  The  drunken  parents 
do  today  send  out  for  liquor  to  drown  the  woes  of 
poverty.  Speaking  superficially,  you  may  say  that 
they  drink  because  they  are  poor.  But,  when  we  go 
into  the  life  history  and  look  back  far  enough  and 
penetrate  deep  enough,  what  we  really  fihid  is  this: 
Originally  it  was  not  po's^erty  that  led  them  to  the 
Drink  Habit,  but  it  was  long-continued  intemperance 
that  has  brought  them  to  this  sad  conditon.  The  score 
of  workmen  lining  the  bar  of  the  obscure  saloon  are 
not  there  because  poor,  not  because  they  have  no  other 
enjoyments  in  life:  many  others  who  are  poorer  and 
who  have  fewer  pleasures  are  not  there.  A determining 
factor,  largely  influential  in  causing  their  presence 
there,  is  the  ancient  superstition  that  liquor  is  a life- 
giver, — -a  superstition  which  science  has  shown  to  be 
utterly  false.  \Maile  it  is  not  true  that  poverty  of 

[68] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


things  is  the  chief  source  of  intemperance,  it  is  true 
that  “poverty  of  life”  largely  causes  the  Drink  Habit. 

A few  months  ago  a notable  Conference  was  held  in 
London  at  which  the  subject  of  Inebriety  and  Destitu- 
tion was  dicussed  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  special- 
ists in  Great  Britain.  These  words  from  the  address 
of  one  of  the  speakers  touch  this  very  matter  very 
forcibly.  He  said  in  part: 

“By  his  daily  drinking  the  workman  maintains  the  conditions  which 
make  for  destitution.  He  is  mainly  responsible  for  his  children  being 
underfed  and  under-clothed;  for  their  premature  employment;  fre- 
quently for  their  mother  having  to  work  also;  and  certainly  for  the 
environment  which  produces  the  low  physique  and  the  liability  to 
chronic  disease  which  makes  the  medical  profession  declare  that 
alcoholism  and  tuberculosis  should  be  concurrently  combated.  The 
elimination  of  alcohol  would  stop  the  machinery  of  degeneration  and 
break  down  the  continuity  of  social  conditions,  which  otherwise, 
through  a process  of  action  and  reaction,  must  perpetuate  the  inebriety, 
the  mental  and  physical  disabilities,  the  destitution,  the  prevention 
of  which  is  the  intention  of  this  Conference.  ” 

trhe  Rt.  Hon.  Charles  Booth  (than  whom 
chM™s  eUtt  there  has  been  no  greater  authority  on  this 
subject  in  the  world),  who,  in  the  earlier 
volumes  of  his  monumental  work  on  “The  Labor 
and  Life  of  the  People,”  was  inclined  to  reduce  the 
proportion  of  the  poverty  of  London  due  to  Drink,  in 
his  final  volume,  after  reviewing  a great  mass  of  evi- 
dence, wrote  this  conclusion:  “The  great  part  played 
by  Drink  in  the  genesis  of  poverty  cannot  be  denied.  ” 
Again,  in  his  work  on  “Pauperism,”  he  made  this 
statement:  “Drink  does  not  stand  as  apparent  chief 
cause  in  as  many  cases  as  sickness  or  old  age,  but,  if  it 
were  not  for  Drink,  sickness  and  old  age  could  be 
better  met.  Drink  must,  therefore,  be  accounted  the 

[69] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


most  prolific  of  all  causes.”  These  surely  are  very 
weighty  words. 

This  important  statement  by  Mr.  Booth  has  been 
garbled  and  perverted  by  representatives  of  the  Liquor 
Interests,  unfortunately  a common  practice  among 
them.  A liquor  apologist  in  a Hull  (England)  news- 
paper not  long  ago,  quoted  this  statement  in  part, 
stopping  with  the  w’ords  “old  age,”  cutting  off  the 
remaining  w’ords  and  so  completely  falsifying  the 
conclusion  of  Mr.  Booth.  This  procedure  is  char- 
acteristic of  the  representatives  of  the  Liquor  Trade. 
Some  two  years  ago  the  Brewers-Union,  of  Germany 
caused  to  be  widely  printed  in  German  papers  an 
extract  from  Prof,  von  Gruber  which  seemed  to  affirm  the 
food  value  of  beer,  whereas  in  fact,  in  other  parts  of 
his  address,  he  admitted  this  only  in  theorj%  calling 
alcoholic  drinks  a narcotic  poison  and  a detestable 
food ! At  the  recent  International  Hygienic  Exhibition 
in  Dresden,  the  Brewers  placed  bulletins  in  their  pavil- 
ion containing  false  statistics  respecting  the  health  and 
food  values  of  beer.  The  directors  acknowledged  that 
these  were  misleading,  but  they  concluded  that  they 
had  no  legal  right  to  remove  them.  However,  they 
posted  near  them  statements  contradicting  them  and 
giving  the  real  facts.  These  are  only  a few  mild  illus- 
trations of  the  reprehensible  tactics  which  the  friends 
of  temperance  have  to  meet. 

Certain  parties  have  for  some  years 
^TMisre^'  the  following  paragraph,  as  an 

resented  authentic  confession  of  Frances  E.  Millard: 

“I  have  said  over  and  over  again  that 
poverty  was  caused  by  intemperance:  Now  I say, 
after  twenty  years  of  study  and  observation,  that  intem- 
perance is  caused  by  poverty.”  Socialists  have  made 
frequent  use  of  this  statement  in  order  to  support  their 

[70] 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


theory  that  the  causes  of  misery  are  economic  rather 
than  ethical,  while  the  liquor  advocates  have  appealed 
to  it  to  combat  the  charge  that  Drink  is  chiefly  responsi- 
ble for  destitution. 

But  did  Miss  Willard  ever  use  the  above  language? 
The  answer  is  positive  and  emphatic  that  these  words 
misrepresent  her  views. 

The  truth  is  as  follows:  In  an  address  in  London, 
in  1895,  she  called  attention  to  the  obvious  fact  that 
poverty  does  lead  some  persons  to  drink,  and  she  inti- 
mated that  probably  temperance  reformers  had  not 
sufficiently  appreciated  this  phase  of  the  complex  social 
problem.  Her  language  was  misunderstood,  and  it 
was  soon  widely  reported  that  she  had  abandoned  her 
former  position  (that  Drink  causes  poverty)  and  that 
she  had  come  to  hold  the  opposite  view,  expressed  in 
the  above  statement,  that  poverty  causes  intemperance. 
This  misleading  report  greatly  annoyed  her,  and  in  a 
speech  at  Baltimore,  the  following  fall,  she  took  occasion 
to  make  this  correction; — 

“Much  criticism  has  been  expended  upon  me  for  declaring  in  my 
third  biennial  address  before  the  World’s  Woman’s  Christian  Tem- 
perance Union  in  June  last,  that  as  temperance  people  we  had  been  in 
error  in  not  recognizing  the  relation  of  poverty  to  intemperance,  and 
because  i stated  that,  while  from  the  first  I have  maintained  that 
intemperance  causes  poverty,  I was  now  ready  not  only  to  reiterate 
that  cardinal  doctrine,  but  to  add  that  poverty  causes  intemperance. 
. . . I did  not  say  that  poverty  caused  intemperance  in  the  same 

degree  that  intemperance  causes  poverty,  nor  do  I think  it  does.  ’’ 


These  sentences  show  clearly  that  the  statement 
attributed  to  her  radically  misrepresented  her  real 
conviction.  That  statement  implies  a complete  change 
of  opinion  and  the  surrender  of  her  early  view  (that 
Drink  causes  poverty),  while  it  presents  her  as  holding 

[71] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


that  practically  all  intemperance  is  caused  by  poverty. 
What  she  did  assert  was  a proposition  entirely  different : 
that  she  had  come  to  realize  that  poverty  is  productive 
of  some  intemperance,  but  that  Drink  produces  desti- 
tution to  a much  larger  extent, — a sane  and  scientific 
conclusion. 

As  has  been  stated,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
many  a workman  does  leave  his  wretched  home 
and  go  to  the  saloon  to  drown  his  misery  in  Drink. 
Apparently,  he  drinks  because  poor.  But  what  is 
generally  the  real  situation?  (1)  He  began  to  drink 
long  ago,  before  he  was  so  poor.  (2)  He  inhabits  that 
miserable  hovel  now  because  he  spends  so  much  money 
on  liquor.  (3)  The  Drink  Habit  cuts  off  at  both  ends : 
it  wastes  his  wages  which,  if  saved,  would  pay  for  a 
good  house,  and  it  also  lessens  his  wages  by  decreasing 
his  industrial  capacity. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  there  are  some  2,000,000 
laborers  in  Great  Britain  who  spend  annually,  out  of 
small  wages,  over  $100  apiece  on  liquor  ($200,000,000.00 
in  all!)  it  is  folly  to  try  to  belittle  the  influence  of 
Drink  as  the  chief  cause  of  poverty.  When  some  of 
these  men  become  “derelicts,”  they  may  drink  to 
drown  their  misery,  but  in  few  cases  did  they  originally 
begin  to  drink  because  poor. 

The  erroneous  explanation  of  the  “ drink- 
problem,”  which  some  social  scientists  at 
Harms  present  advocate,  has  injured  the  temper- 

ance cause  in  various  ways,  but  chiefly  in 
two  respects: — 

I.  Like  the  erroneous  diagnosis  of  any  disease,  it 
misrepresents  the  real  situation  and  leads  people  to 
resort  to  the  wrong  remedies.  These  social  philosophers 
see  nothing  to  do,  in  order  to  remove  the  evils  of  Drink, 
but  to  reorganize  the  economic  groundwork  of  modern 

[72] 


WHERE  DRINK  DOES  ITS  WORST  AMONG 


ALCOHOL-CAUSED  DEATH  IS  PREVENTABLE  DEATH 


THE  ROOTS  OF  CRIME  AND  POVERTY 


society.  They  hold  that  the  case  is  wholly  industrial, 
while  in  fact  it  is  chiefly  moral  and  spiritual.  Such  a 
view,  moreover,  stands  in  the  way  of  that  educational 
campaign  which  seeks  to  make  scientific  truth  the  rule 
and  motive  of  every  life,  emphasizing  the  importance 
of  total  abstinence,  which  these  sociologists  are  often 
inclined  to  ignore. 

II.  This  diagnosis  tends  to  make  people  tolerant  of 
the  saloon  and  complacent  toward  the  liquor  trade. 
It  blurs  the  vision  so  that  the  gigantic  evils  of  Drink 
are  not  clearly  seen  or  fully  appreciated,  while  it  dulls 
the  edge  of  the  consciences  of  good  people,  so  that 
the  corrupting  power  of  brewers  and  distillers  as  exerted 
on  legislation  and  through  the  press,  is  not  keenly  felt 
or  courageously  resisted.  Its  advocates,  as  a rule, 
show  lamentable  indifference  to  aggressive  temperance 
action,  neither  helping  to  make  restrictive  laws  nor 
aiding  the  enforcement  of  such  laws  when  enacted. 
Therefore,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  all  the  friends  of 
temperance  reform  to  do  all  they  can  to  make  clear 
the  fallacy  and  folly  of  the  theory  of  the  relation  of 
Drink  and  poverty  unfortunately  put  forth  by  some 
teachers  of  social  science,  even  in  high  places. 

Probably  the  most  notable  utterance  on 
Attitade  ^his  subject  at  the  London  Conference  on 
“Destitution”  (to  which  allusion  has  al- 
ready been  made)  was  that  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  Vezey 
Strong,  who  was  recently  Lord  Mayor  of  London. 
These  words  from  his  notable  address  are  especially 
worthy  of  attention: 

“Alcohol  is  therefore  a most  important  factor  in  destitution,  be- 
cause it  affects  so  many  other  contributing  factors.  . . . It  is 

therefore  obvious  that  alcohol  is  in  itself  a hindrance  to  a proper 
appreciation  and  to  the  effective  study  of  its  relationship  to  the 
problem  of  destitution;  and  it  is  important  that  those  of  us  who  are 

[73] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


interested  in  changing  the  social  conditions  which  cause  degeneracy 
and  produce  destitution  should  eliminate  from  our  minds  the  bias  of 
alcohol.  ” 

These  are  wise  words.  No  man  has  a right  to  discuss 
this  great  problem,  and  its  numerous  and  important 
relations,  until  he  has  completely  freed  himself  from 
the  bias  incident  to  the  use  of  liquor.  The  only  man 
capable  of  approaching  the  problem  in  a truly  scientific 
spirit  is  the  total  abstainer.  The  slave  of  alcohol  may 
not  feel  its  evil  power,  but  one  must  be  free  from  its 
deceptive  spell  to  pass  scientific  judgment  upon  its 
destruction  of  human  life. 

It  is  interesting  to  recall  that  INIr.  Strong  has  prac- 
ticed what  he  here  preached.  Many  years  ago,  when 
a young  man  and  a moderate  drinker,  he  resolved  to 
abstain  for  a time  before  hearing  a temperance  lecture 
by  Dr.  Benjamin  Ward  Richardson,  in  order  that  he 
might  be  in  a proper  condition  to  appreciate  it!  And 
this  experience  made  him  a total  abstainer!  When 
brewers  and  distillers,  in  a highly  moral  tone,  tell  us 
what  ought  to  be  done  to  promote  temperance,  the 
friends  of  humanity  may  well  indulge  in  suspicion: 
The  mockery  of  greed  is  self-evident.  Also,  when  so- 
called  “moderate  drinkers”  attempt  to  defend  their 
habits  and  applaud  the  benefits  of  Drink,  the  lovers 
of  mankind  are  justified  in  holding  that  users  of  what 
uniformly  deceives  cannot  give  evidence  of  any  value, 
and  their  judgment  is  perverted  by  self-interest.  Only 
the  man  free  from  the  Drink  Superstition  can  fully 
understand  the  evils  of  intemperance  or  successfully 
lead  in  the  victorious  warfare  against  them. 


[74] 


Mr.  Gladstone,  replying  to  a deputation  of  brewers,  said: — “Gentle- 
men, you  need  not  give  yourselves  any  trouble  about  the  revenue. 
The  question  of  revenue  must  never  stand  in  the  way  of  needed  re- 
forms. Besides,  with  a sober  population,  not  wasting  their  earnings, 
I shall  know  where  to  obtain  the  revenue.” 

“If  the  money  spent  for  intoxicating  liquor  had  been  spent  for 
bread  and  clothing,  it  would  have  employed  about  seven  times  as 
many  workers  [as  are  engaged  in  the  liquor  business].  \Miat  becomes 
of  the  argument  that  there  will  be  a labor  panic,  if  the  liquor  industry 
is  destroyed.?”  Charles  Stelzle.  Recently  Superintendent  Bureau 
of  Social  Service,  Presbyterian  Church. 

“If  a loss  of  revenue  should  accrue  to  the  United  States  from  a 
diminished  consumption  of  ardent  spirits  she  will  be  the  gainer  a thou- 
sandfold in  the  health,  wealth  and  happiness  of  her  people.”  The 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

“Whoever  first  brewed  beer  has  prepared  a pest  for  Germany.  I 
have  prayed  to  God  that  he  would  destroy  the  whole  brewing  indus- 
try. I have  often  pronounced  a curse  on  the  brewer.  All  Germany 
could  live  on  the  barley  that  is  spoiled  and  turned  into  a curse  by  the 
brewer.”  Martin  Luther,  in  his  Table  Talk. 

“From  the  point  of  view  of  social  economics,  the  expenditure  of 
capital  and  labour  on  the  production  of  alcoholic  drinks  is  uneco- 
nomic. It  actually  represents  the  expenditure  of  capital  and  labour 
upon  the  production  of  a commodity  which  is  distinctly  opposed  to 
the  existence  of  well-being,  and  which  reduces  the  productivitj^  of 
other  capital  and  labour  by  reducing  the  eflBciency  of  labour.”  John 
Longdon,  Oxford  University  Diploma  in  Economics. 

“When  intoxicants  have  been  made,  sold  and  consumed,  there  is 
nothing  to  show  for  the  expenditure  except  a certain  crop  of  trouble, 
poverty,  crime,  and  disease.  It  is  more  than  sheer  waste.  It  would 
have  been  better  for  everybody  concerned  if  all  the  money  had  been 
expended  in  digging  holes  and  filling  them  up  again.”  Sir  Thomas 
P.  Whittaker,  Sl.  P.  Cassell’s  Magazine,  May,  1910. 


[76] 


II 


c 

(« 

4-> 

u 

o 

a 

c 

«3 

w 


Copyriglil  1911,  by  Scientific  Tcinpcrance  Federation. 


CHAPTER  IV 

A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 

The  editors  of  the  journals  representing  the  Liquor 
Interests  are  constantly  predicting  that  a dire  calamity 
would  befall  the  business  of  the  country  if  breweries, 
distilleries,  and  saloons  were  closed  by  drastic  laws. 
This  is  the  same  old  cry  with  which  the  paganism  of 
the  ancient  vimrld  opposed  Christianity.  These  modern 
interests  rej)resent  Demetrius  the  silversmith,  and 
Alexander  the  coppersmith,  who  did  Paul  “much  evil,” 
because  he  interfered  with  their  trade  in  shrines  and 
images.  And  we  should  put  them  where  he  put  his 
enemies:  “Where  they  may  learn  not  to  blaspheme!” 
To  injure  the  sons  of  God,  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
simply  for  worldly  greed,  is  to  sin  most  grievously 
against  both  God  and  man. 

The  old  pagans  complained  of  the  Christian  mis- 
sionaries: “You  upset  the  business  of  the  world. 
The  farmers  who  raise  cattle  for  the  temple  sacrifices 
will  not  be  able  to  sell  their  stock.  Wine  growers  and 
bird  raisers  will  have  no  trade,  for  libation  will  cease 
and  augurs  wiU  disappear.  Silversmiths  and  copper- 
smiths will  become  bankrupt.  Artists  and  artisans 
will  be  idle,  because  there  will  be  no  temples  to  build  or 
altars  to  decorate.  You  must  be  put  out  of  the  way, 
because  you  destroy  property,  and  drive  men  out  of 
employment!”  There  is  not  an  argument  now  used 
by  liquor  men  against  temperance  but  was  madly 
urged  against  the  Christian  Church  in  its  early  days. 

[77] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


But  no  such  calamity  happened  then,  and 
No  Economic  no  such  Calamity  will  happen  now.  It  is 
evermore  true,  that  to  destroy  what  destroys 
Drink  men  helps  to  establish  the  RepubUc  of 

God.  In  the  old  time,  when  cattle  ceased 
to  be  used  for  sacrifices,  the  people  had  more  meat  to 
eat.  So  now,  the  money  saved  from  Drink,  will  enable 
people  to  buy  more  bread  and  clothes;  and  to  produce 
these  will  employ  many  more  men  than  now  work  in 
making  and  selling  liquors.  For  every  man  leaving 
the  closed  brewery  ten  doors  of  honorable  opportunity 
to  labor  will  open.  As  Abraham  Lincoln  long  ago 
said:  “Even  the  dram  maker  and  the  dram  seller 
will  have  glided  into  other  occupations  so  gradually 
as  never  to  have  felt  the  shock  of  change.  ” 

The  vineyards  now  devoted  to  wine-making  could 
readily  be  turned  to  the  production  of  “grape  juice” — 
an  innocent  drink,  now  fast  growing  in  favor,  while 
distilleries  and  breweries  could,  as  Dr.  T.  D.  Crothers 
has  suggested,  easily  turn  to  making  crude  alcohol  for 
industrial  purposes,  producing  enough  to  do  much  of 
the  world’s  work  instead  of  destroying  human  life, 
and  in  such  a change  no  capital  would  be  destroyed 
and  no  laborer  discharged! 

Attention  may  well  be  called  here  to  two  facts:  (1) 
The  same  result,  so  far  as  the  liquor  business  is  con- 
cerned, would  follow,  if  all  men  should  become  total 
abstainers.  This  would  close  the  saloons  the  same 
as  drastic  laws.  Now,  it  is  universally  admitted  that 
drunkenness  is  a curse,  that  the  expenditure  of  so  much 
money  on  liquor  is  an  immense  evil,  and  that  stopping 
the  Drink  Habit  would  be  an  untold  blessing  for  the 
race.  Obviously,  it  is  absurd  to  hold  that  closing 
saloons  by  total  abstinence  is  a good  thing,  while 
closing  them  by  drastic  laws  would  be  an  evil  thing. 

[78] 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


The  effect  on  business  in  general  would  be  the  same. 
And  if  good  in  one  case,  it  could  not  be  bad  in  the 
other. 

(2)  There  must  be  something  wrong 
Liquor  with  a business,  when  those  engaged  in  it 

Defers  ashamed  of  what  they  themselves 

Ashamed  of  i i • i 

Their  Trade  procluce.  riVery  other  business  takes  pride 

in  what  it  makes:  All  mills  and  factories 
send  their  finished  products  to  exhibitions  all  over  the 
world.  Brewers  and  distillers  may  proudly  exhibit 
their  liquors,  but  not  their  finished  products  as  sent 
forth  from  the  saloon.  No  town  advertises  its  large 
number  of  dram  shops  and  no  employer  seeking  work- 
men asks  for  those  who  drink!  It  is  a notable  fact 
that  at  several  conventions  of  liquor  men,  recently 
held  in  our  country  (and  the  liquor  press  often  make 
the  same  plea),  appeals  were  made  urging  those  in  the 
business  to  see  to  it  that  intoxicated  persons  be  care- 
fully kept  out  of  sight  of  the  public,  just  as  much  as 
possible!  It  was  said:  “A  man  the  worse  for  liquor 
is  a very  poor  advertisement  of  our  trade!”  Surely, 
no  doubt  about  that!  But  he  is  only  the  common  and 
finished  product  of  the  business.  In  no  other  calling 
are  men  ashamed  of  what  they  make.  Certainly,  the 
abolition  of  a business  so  abnormal  and  ruinous  to  the 
best  in  human  life,  could  not  possibly  harm  the  legiti- 
mate business  interests  of  our  land. 

An  apologist  for  the  Liquor  Trade  recently 
raised  this  very  question  in  a college  maga- 
zine, respecting  the  injury  which  would  be 
inflicted  upon  general  business  by  closing  the  saloons, 
and  in  reply  to  the  question,  What  would  it  mean  to 
stop  the  making  and  selling  of  liquor?— he  said:  “It 
means  that  the  annual  investments  of  the  brewers  and 
distillers  of  $359,951,097.00  to  produce  and  put  upon 

[79] 


Economic 

Fallacies 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  market  their  goods  are  no  longer  to  be  made.  The 
farmer  who  grows  the  barley,  rye,  corn,  and  other 
grains  used  in  the  processes  will  be  hurt  annually  more 
than  $108,000,000.00  worth.  A sum  of  more  than 
$52,000,000.00  no  longer  will  be  put  into  the  labor  that 
produces  the  beer,  liquors  and  the  like.  A mere  trifle 
of  $10,000,000.00  for  coal  will  not  be  expended  when 
the  chimneys  of  the  breweries  and  distilleries  are  cold.  ” 
In  addition,  it  is  often  asserted  that  this  business  em- 
ploys more  than  a million  men  who  would  be  made 
tramps,  if  saloons  were  closed. 

All  similar  statements  are  full  of  obvious  exaggeration. 
In  England,  it  is  frequently  asserted  that  2,000,000 
persons  depend  upon  “The  Trade”  for  a living.  But 
it  has  easily  been  shown  that  this  figure  is  three  or  four 
times  too  large.  The  figures  for  England  may  be 
found  in“The  Economic  Aspect  of  the  Drink  Question,” 
by  Henry  G.  Chancellor,  M.  P.,  1911.  However,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  quibble  over  the  size  of  these  figures. 
We  may  accept  the  extreme  statements  and  ask : What 
follows? 

The  grains  used  by  the  manufacturers  of 
Less  Whisky  liquors  in  our  land  amount  to  only  three 
cent,  of  our  annual  crop!  If  that  use 
People  should  cease,  no  farmer  would  feel  it.  More- 

over, this  grain  would  be  bought  for  food 
to  make  sound  bodies  rather  than  used  as  at  present 
to  produce  w^hat  unmakes  American  manhood. 

Mr.  Charles  Stelzle  has  made  a verj'^  careful  sum- 
mary which  may  well  be  quoted  here.  He  is  a verj' 
competent  writer,  who  sees  things  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  common  laborer.  He  says: 

“ Upon  a conservative  basis  we  may  safely  say  that  the  annual 
drink  bill  in  America  is  $1,800,000,000.00;  that  is  to  say,  this  is  the 

[80] 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


amount  which  is  spent  at  the  retail  price  for  intoxicating  liquor. 
The  amount  spent  per  annum  by  the  consumer  for  bread  and  clothing 
is  about  the  same.  Suppose  that  the  money  now  spent  for  liquor 
should  be  spent  for  bread  and  clothing.  What  would  be  the  effect 
upon  labor?  The  statistics  of  manufacturers  for  1911  give  the  fol- 
owing  figures  with  reference  to  each  of  these  groups  of  industries  as 
they  are  related  to  the  number  of  workers  employed,  wages  paid  and 
the  cost  of  raw  material  used:  Wage  earners  employed — in  the  liquor 
industry,  62,920;  bread  and  clothing,  493,655.  Wages  paid — intoxi- 
cating liquor,  $139,999,000.00,  bread  and  clothing,  $744,337,000.00. 
It  is  at  once  apparent  that  if  the  $1,800,000,000.00  now  spent  for 
liquor  were  to  be  spent  for  bread  and  clothing  it  would  give  employ- 
ment to  nearly  eight  times  as  many  workers,  who  would  collectively 
receive  five  and  a half  times  as  much  in  wages.” 

There  is  a point  of  great  importance  in 
Rat^"  me*  connection  which  is  seldom  mentioned: 

Liquor  Trade  the  mortality  of  those  engaged  in  “The 
Trade.”  Careful  investigations  in  Eng- 
land, France,  Germany,  and  America  show  that  the 
death  rate  of  the  men  who  sell  liquors  is  from  50  to 
300  per  cent,  greater  than  that  of  average  workmen;  so 
great  is  it  that  almost  none  ever  reach  old  age!  Now, 
if  we  grant  that  there  are  500,000  so  engaged  in  our 
nation,  the  annual  loss  of  life  among  them,  in  excess 
of  the  average  mortahty,  would  be,  at  a very  low'  esti- 
mate, probably  about  5,000  persons.  That  is,  some 
5,000  lives  are  subtracted  from  our  population  annually, 
because  these  men  are  engaged  in  selling  liquor!  Here 
alone  is  a financial  loss  (counting  an  individual  as  an 
industrial  asset  worth  $5,000.00)  of  $25,000,000.00, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  great  expense  caused  by  the 
increased  sickness  so  produced.  So  high  is  the  death 
rate  that  insurance  companies  in  general  will  not  insure 
the  lives  of  men  engaged  in  selling  hquor.  Brewers 
and  others  are  charged  $5.00  per  thousand  extra  (See 

[81] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


“Effect  of  Total  Abstinence  on  the  Death  Rate.” 
By  Joel  G.  Van  Cise:  Actuary  for  “Equitable  Life”). 

Here  is  certainly  a powerful  appeal  to  human  sjnn- 
pathy:  If  we  have  any  proper  regard  for  these  poor 
fellows,  we  ought,  for  their  sake,  to  rescue  these500,000 
men  from  an  employment  where  the  death  rate  is  so 
excessively  high:  the  highest  among  ordinary  human 
occupations.  The  pity  of  it!  Thousands  dying  every 
year  simply  because  they  serve  the  pubhc  with  liquors, 
which  do  the  drinkers  themselves  nothing  but  evil!  If 
such  a great  slaughter  occurred  anj^vhere  else,  in  any 
line  of  factories  employing  500,000  men,  how  soon 
something  would  be  done  about  it ! 

It  has  also  been  clearly  and  repeatedly 
Industrial  proved  by  industrial  experiments,  labora- 
Lo^ered^  tory  tests,  and  athletic  contests,  that 
by  Drink  liquor  lowers  the  industrial  efficiency  of 
those  who  use  it.  Prof.  Gustav  Aschaffen- 
burg  has  shown  by  careful  experiments  with  four 
printers  that  in  typesetting  the  loss  occasioned  by 
Drink  was  about  ten  per  cent.  That  is,  that  10  ab- 
stainers, as  a rule,  could  do  as  much  as  11  drinkers,  aU 
other  conditions  being  the  same.  The  tests  made  by 
Dr.  E.  A.  Parkes  with  different  gangs  of  soldiers,  under 
conditions  similar  in  all  other  respects,  the  one  drinkers 
and  the  other  abstainers,  showed  the  same  results.  In 
many  athletic  contests,  notably  the  Sixty-two  iSIile 
Walking  Match  at  Kiel  in  1908,  the  superior  endurance 
of  abstainers  was  forcibly  demonstrated.  Although 
they  numbered  less  than  one-third  of  the  contestants 
(24  to  59),  they  won  about  two-thirds  of  the  prizes — 
the  1",  2",  3",  4",  8",  and  9"  of  the  ten! 

The  achievements  of  leading  swimmers  and  cricketers 
make  plain  the  same  fact.  The  finest  batsman  of 
recent  years  is  acknowledge  to  be  Prince  Ranjitsinhji 

[82] 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


of  India  and  next  to  him  come  C.  B.  Fry,  T.  Hayward, 
and  J.  T.  Tyldesley:  all  total  abstainers.  The  winner 
of  “the  swim  through  London”  in  1907,  was  J.  A. 
Jarvis,  a total  abstainer,  who  stated  that  he  won  over 
his  chief  competitor,  largely  because  friends  gave  his 
opponent  “a  nip  of  whisky.”  Jack  Hatfield  of  Eng- 
land is  today  the  fastest  all-round  swimmer  in  the 
world.  He  is  not  only  a total  abstainer  but  the  son 
of  abstainers.  The  records  of  athletics  of  all  kinds  are 
today  full  of  similar  cases,  especially  in  football  and 
baseball.  We  may  well  add  here  the  testimony  of  a 
leading  American  authority  in  this  general  department, 
Prof.  Irving  Fisher  (Yale  University),  who  states: 
“That  alcohol  increases  fatigue  [instead  of  adding- 
strength  or  skill]  is  now  commonly  recognized  by 
athletes.  ” 

Dr.  John  J.  Abel,  of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  than 
whom  there  is  not  a higher  authority  in  the  world, 
makes  the  following  statement: 

“Both  science  and  the  experience  of  life  have  exploded  the  perni- 
cious theory  that  alcohol  gives  any  permanent  increase  of  muscular 
power.  The  disappearance  of  this  universal  error  will  greatly  reduce 
the  consumption  of  alcohol  among  laboring  men.  It  is  well  under- 
stood by  all  who  control  armies  or  large  bodies  of  men  engaged  in 
physical  labor  that  alcohol  and  efifective  work  are  incompatible.” 
“Physiological  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem.”  Vol.  II,  p.  165. 

At  this  point  it  is  well  to  present  the 
testimony  of  Sir  Frederick  Treves,  Bart., 
M.  D.,  who  was  physician  to  the  late  King 
Edward.  His  words  refer  to  the  campaign 
in  South  Africa:  “As  a work  producer 
alcohol  is  exceedingly  extravagant,  and 
like  other  extravagant  measures,  it  is  apt  to  lead  to  a 
physical  bankruptcy.  It  is  well  known  that  troops 

[83] 


1903. 


Testimony 
of  English 
and  French 
Military 
Authorities 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


cannot  march  on  alcohol.  I was  with  the  relief  column 
that  moved  on  to  Ladysmith.  It  was  an  extremely 
trying  time,  apart  from  the  heat  of  the  weather.  In 
that  column  of  some  30,000  men,  the  first  who  dropped 
out  were  not  the  tall  men,  or  the  short  men,  or  the  big 
men,  or  the  little  men — but  the  drinkers,  and  they 
dropped  out  as  clearly  as  if  they  had  been  labelled  'ndth 
a big  letter  on  their  backs.”  An  eminent  American 
scientist.  Dr.  Henry  S.  Williams,  after  a wide  sur\*ey  of 
this  whole  field  from  the  vantage  ground  of  the  latest 
scientific  researches,  arrives  at  this  conclusion;  ‘‘I  am 
bound  to  believe,  in  the  light  of  what  science  has  re- 
vealed . . . that  you  are  unequivocally  decreasing 

your  capacity  for  work  in  any  field  (if  you  take  alcohol 
habitually,  in  any  quantity  whatsoever),  be  it  physical, 
intellectual,  or  artistic.”  (Alcohol;  How  it  Affects  the 
Individual,  the  Community  and  the  Race;  p.  50.  1909.) 

The  military  authorities  in  France  also  state  that 
the  loss  which  Drink  causes  to  the  recruiting  of  the 
army  every  year  amounts  to  a whole  army  corps!  In 
other  words,  this  vast  company  of  young  men  in  that 
nation  are  found  to  be  so  stunted  or  enfeebled  by 
liquor  (personal  or  parental  use),  that  the  authorities 
have  every  year  to  excuse  that  number  from  militarj’ 
service.  How  many  are  incapacitated  for  the  best 
industrial  service  no  one  can  tell,  but  certainly  a great 
multitude.  Such  facts  show  how  vitally  the  Drink 
Problem  is  bound  up  with  questions  of  national  progress 
and  prosperity. 

The  evidence  on  this  point  is  too  volumi- 
nous  to  be  given  here,  but  a few  more  facts 
may  well  be  stated  briefly.  The  Rt.  Hon. 
D.  Lloyd-George,  M.  P.,  speaking  at  Man- 
chester, Eng.,  Oct.  15,  1907,  said:  “It  is 
found  from  enquiries  amongst  employers 

[84] 


of  Employers 
on  the 
Industrial 
Harm  by 
Drink 


Published  and  Copyrighted  1912,  by  Scientific  Temperance  Federation,  Boston. 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


that  on  Monday  morning  from  5 to  75  per  cent, 
of  the  people  do  not  turn  up  owing  to  Drink,  and 
when  they  do  come  back  they  have  muddy  intellects 
and  impaired  vitality.” 

Hon.  J.  Frank  Hanly,  formerly  governor  of  Indiana, 
asked  a wealthy  factory  owner  who  was  endeavoring 
to  close  the  saloon  opposite  his  factory,  “Why  is  it 
that  you  are  trying  to  close  this  place  novv^  when  a 
year  ago  you  were  fighting  me  for  trying  to  enforce 
Sunday  closing.?”  “Governor,”  the  man  replied,  “it’s 
not  a moral  standard  with  me  at  all;  it’s  economic. 
My  men  are  worth  50  per  cent,  more  to  me  on  Monday 
morning  if  that  saloon  is  closed  over  Sunday.” 

Mr.  H.  Dillon  Gouge,  public  actuary  of  South  Austra- 
lia, found  that  the  average  weeks  of  sickness  in  three 
societies  of  abstainers  was  1,248,  while  in  three  societies 
of  men  using  liquor,  the  average  weeks  of  sickness,  and 
therefore  absence  from  work,  was  2,319 ! That  is,  the 
abstainers  lost  only  about  half  as  many  days’  labor. 
Consider,  for  a moment,  how  vast  this  economic  loss 
is  when  the  millions  of  drinking  workmen  in  our  country 
are  counted. 

In  an  address  in  New  York  City  in  1883,  the  eminent 
English  physiologist.  Dr.  Wm.  B.  Carpenter,  told  the 
story  of  a vessel,  which  in  going  from  Australia  to 
England,  sprang  a leak,  soon  after  leaving  Sydney.  At 
first,  the  captain  gave  his  men  the  usual  allowance  of 
grog.  But  soon  the  water  began  to  gain  on  them  and 
their  strength  began  to  fail.  Then  he  stopped  the 
grog,  giving  the  men  cocoa  and  sugar  instead.  Con- 
ditions at  once  improved  and  when  he  reached  port, 
the  crew  was  in  fair  condition  in  spite  of  the  long  and 
severe  work  at  the  pumps. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is,  therefore,  no  wonder  that 
the  eminent  Belgian  statesman,  Hon.  Jules  Lejeune, 

[85] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


should  assert  at  the  Seventh  International  Congress 
on  Alcoholism:  “You  will  never  solve  the  social 
question  until  you  have  vanquished  alcoholism. 
Because  of  it  all  reforms  are  doomed  beforehand  to 
sterility.” 

What,  then,  is  the  bearing  of  these  facts  upon  the 
claim  that  the  stopping  of  the  making  and  selling  of 
liquors  would  ruin  the  business  of  the  country.?  It  is 
obvious  and  impressive.  Calculating  twenty  regular 
drinkers  from  the  laboring  classes  for  each  of  our  250,000 
dram  shops,  we  have  5,000,000  workmen  in  our  land 
whose  eflBciency  is  lessened  some  10  per  cent,  on  that 
account.  In  other  words,  this  means  an  annual  indus- 
trial loss  to  our  nation  of  500,000  laborers!  That  is  to 
say,  if  these  workmen  were  to  turn  abstainers  and  so 
close  the  saloons,  this  action  on  their  part,  would 
practically  add  to  the  industrial  efficiency  of  our  land 
as  much  as  the  labor  of  500,000  men,  plus  an  equal 
number  now  engaged  in  the  Liquor  Trade,  who  being 
added  to  productive  industry  would  make  a total 
gain  of  a million  men!  To  say  nothing  of  the  millions 
of  dollars  which  would  thereby  be  turned  from  worse 
than  waste  to  useful  channels  of  trade.  In  the  face 
of  these  facts,  to  talk  longer  about  the  ruin  of  business 
from  closing  the  saloons  is  both  fallacy  and  foolish- 
ness. 

This  matter  may  be  put  in  another  way. 
Enormous  spend  some  $400,000,000.00  to  dig  the 

Labor  Panama  Canal  is  good  business,  because  it 

will  facilitate  the  commerce  of  the  world. 
But  suppose  our  nation  should  take  $1,800,000,000.00 
(four  times  the  cost  of  that  canal) — the  money  annually 
spent  for  Drink  among  us, — and  dig  the  coming  year 
a long  ditch,  somewhere  in  the  Ilockj"  Mountains,  that 
would  have  no  use  whatever  for  agriculture  or  traffic: 

[86] 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


that  would  indeed  be  a gigantic  waste;  and  it  would 
not  take  many  such  enterprises  to  bankrupt  the  coun- 
try. But  the  waste  on  liquor  is,  in  many  respects,  far 
more  than  this.  The  vast  sum  spent  in  saloons  puts 
thousands  into  the  ditches  of  crime,  disease,  insanity 
and  poverty:  not  only  taking  them  away  from  the 
industrial  resources  of  the  nation,  but  making  it  neces- 
sary to  detail  thousands  of  policemen,  nurses,  guards, 
caretakers,  doctors,  officials  (taking  them  from  useful 
employments),  in  order  to  protect  society  from  the 
products  of  the  saloon  or  to  help  them  in  their  misery. 
At  the  ninth  New  York  State  Conference  of  Charities 
at  Elmira  (1908),  Dr.  Frederick  Peterson,  Columbia 
University,  asserted  that  the  actual  loss  every  year  to 
the  state  from  alcoholic  insanity  was  $2,400,000.00,  and 
for  the  United  States,  it  would  be  over  $12,000,000.00. 

The  making  and  selling  of  liquors  is  as  unproductive 
labor  as  the  digging  of  such  a ditch  would  be,  and,  in 
addition,  it  fills  the  ditch  with  a stream  of  misery ! The 
drinking  of  liquors  is  unproductive  consumption,  because 
it  consumes  the  manhood  and  the  muscle  of  the  race. 
Can  any  one  look  for  a moment  upon  these  startling 
facts  and  doubt  that  the  making  and  selling  and  drink- 
ing of  liquors  is  destructive  to  every  legitimate  business 
interest  of  the  land.^  Nothing  else  costs  so  much  to 
make  as  a drunkard;  nothing  else  costs  so  much  to 
keep  as  the  degenerates  produced  by  liquor.  An 
eminent  physician  of  Munich,  after  careful  investiga- 
tion, concluded  that  the  cost  to  the  city  of  42  Chronic 
Drinkers  was  $26,000.00  a year:  In  beer-drinking 
Munich!  That  is  the  way  beer  solves  the  Drink 
Problem!  Nothing  else  destroys  so  much  as  drinking; 
the  maker  of  nothing  else  is  ashamed  of  what  he  pro- 
duces, but  the  saloon  keeper! 

[87] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Influence  of 
Drink  on 
Insurance 

000.00. 


Take  the  matter  of  insurance.  The 
Drink  Bill  of  the  British  Isles  is  about 
$800,000,000.00.  The  amount  there  paid 
for  all  kinds  of  insurance  is  about  $350,000,- 
What  is  worse  than  wasted  on  liquor  would 
enable  the  people  to  add  more  than  double  the  amount 
of  insurance  now  being  carried.  But  more  than  this: 
Many  British  companies  now  give  total  abstainers 
certain  advantages  which  mean  a practical  reduction 
in  annual  premiums  of  from  10  to  20  per  cent.  In 
other  words,  if  there  were  no  dram  shops  in  the  land, 
and  all  were  abstainers,  the  people  of  that  nation  could 
save  on  their  insurance  premiums  e^’ery  year  at  least 
$20,000,000.00!  Only  an  approximate  estimate  can 
be  made  for  the  United  States,  but  it  is  a fair  statement 
that  if  all  policies  in  our  nation  were  upon  a total 
abstinence  basis,  the  insurance  now  being  carried  by 
our  people  would  cost  $50,000,000.00  less  a year  than 
at  present!  In  estimating  what  might  be  saved,  on 
the  basis  of  abstinence,  in  his  interesting  article  on 
this  subject  in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly  for  April, 
1913,  Dr.  Eugene  L.  Fisk,  Medical  Director  of  the 
“ Postal  Life,  ” refers  to  the  saving  of  over  $5,000,000.00, 
but  this,  he  says,  is  reckoned  on  only  10  per  cent,  of  the 
policies  carried  by  ordinary  life  companies.  By  taking 
the  whole  number  and  adding  the  fraternal  insurance, 
the  above  estimate  seems  reasonable.  This  saving  on 
life  insurance  alone  would  be  one  quarter  what  the 
Liquor  Trade  now  pays  annually  to  our  nation  in 
revenues.  And  this,  as  already  pointed  out,  would  be 
only  a fraction  of  the  real  advantage. 

From  such  facts  as  these,  it  is  it  surely 
very  clear  that  the  Liquor  Trade  is  the  one 
great  menace  to  the  best  business  interests 
of  the  land.  We  are  frequently  told  that  shutting  the 

[88] 


The  Saloons 
and  Taxes 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


saloons  would  seriously  cripple  the  government.  But 
if  there  were  fewer  saloons  the  state  would  need  less 
income.  In  scores  of  counties  where  there  are  no 
saloons,  jails  and  poor-houses  have  few  or  no  inmates, 
while  courts  and  officers  of  the  law  have  little  to  do. 
\Mio  would  pay  the  taxes.?  If  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands now  in  penal,  reformatory,  and  charitable  insti- 
tutions, ruined  by  Drink,  were  in  normal  conditions 
of  life,  they  alone  could  carry  the  whole  burden  which 
the  Trade  now  bears  and  besides  be  infinitely  happier 
and  also  make  others  happier. 

A trustworthy  English  authority  has  reached  the 
conclusion,  after  a careful  survey  of  the  whole  matter, 
that  the  annual  cost  and  loss  through  Drink  in  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  is  $1,700,000,000.00.  The  sum 
paid  as  revenue,  $180,000,000.00,  is  only  a little  more 
than  one  tenth  the  financial  loss  it  causes,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  immense  losses  of  a moral  nature.  (See  Nevdon, 
Our  National  Drink  Bill,  p.  142.  1909.)  That  is, 

the  government  practically  takes  a dollar  from  “The 
Trade”  and  puts  it  in  one  pocket,  and  at  the  same  time 
takes  nine  dollars  out  of  another  pocket  and  throws 
it  away.  To  stop  that  would  surely  be  good  business. 

A man  who  saws  wood  contributes  more  to  the  indus- 
trial resonrces  of  the  land  than  a hundred  men  who 
pour  out  beer  and  whisky.  For  every  dollar  that  the 
city  or  nation  receives  in  revenue  from  liquor,  five 
dollars  of  someone’s  money  are  worse  than  wasted;  and 
for  every  barrel  of  beer  or  whisky  consumed,  the  indus- 
trial efficiency  of  ten  men  is  thereby  seriously  lessened. 
Such  a policy  is  not  only  wasteful,  but  harmful. 

One  other  illustration  may  serve  to  make 
this  matter  clear.  Suppose  the  sum  an- 
nually wasted  on  Drink  by  our  people, 
$1,800,000,000.00,  should  be  spent  in  mak- 

[89] 


A Billion 

Dollars 

Wasted 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


ing  good  Macadamized  roads  across  the  country.  It 
would  cost  on  an  average,  for  a long  line  of  such  road, 
about  $40,000.00  a mile,  an  exceedingly  liberal  estimate. 
To  build  a cross-continental  highway  from  ocean  to 
ocean,  would  cost,  therefore,  about  $120,000,000.00. 
Five  such  trans-continental  highways  would  cost 
$600,000,000.00, — only  a third  of  our  Drink  Bill!  This 
could  be  done  each  year  and  then  have  $1,200,000,000.00 
left  to  build  turnpikes  north  and  south.  On  the  same 
basis  of  cost,  one  such  road  could  be  built  annually 
with  this  sum  every  twenty  miles  westward  to  the 
Mississippi  River,  reaching  from  the  Canadian  line  to 
tidewater!  How  such  highways  would  bless  our 
country!  Reducing  the  cost  of  marketing  goods  and 
produce  and  so  bringing  down  the  cost  of  living;  mul- 
tiplying the  facilities  of  human  life  in  many  ways  and 
making  agriculture  more  profitable  and  enjoyable; 
and  adding  also  many  valuable  elements  to  the  content 
and  progress  of  civilization.  To  close  saloons  and  use 
the  500,000  men  so  liberated  in  road  building,  would 
also  be  an  economic  gain  of  vast  proportion.  The 
lessening  of  accidents,  diseases,  and  crimes,  and  general 
disorders,  that  would  follow,  would  turn  many  a wilder- 
ness into  a blooming  garden.  The  vision  of  the  prophet 
would  surely  be  fulfilled : “ Make  straight  in  the  desert 

a highway  for  our  God!” 

Let  us  see  how  the  Liquor  Trade  works 
How  the  ^ business  proposition  in  a small 

Trade  Works  village  of  3,000  people  (counting  the  trib- 
iri  the  Average  utary  Country  folk),  with  four  saloons.  As 
coun^  the  average  per  capita  expenditure  for 
Village  Drink  in  the  United  States  is  over  $20.00 
a year,  on  that  basis,  this  village  would 
spend  $60,000.00  annually  for  liquor.  But,  to  be  con- 
servative, we  wdll  cut  this  in  two  and  make  it  $30,000.00. 

[90] 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


That  sum,  very  large  for  so  small  a community,  we 
may  set  down  as  the  charge  against  the  saloons.  The 
business  gains  from  them  are  as  follows:  for  licenses, 
$1,000.00  ($250.00  being  the  average  village  fee);  for 
rent  (the  keepers  living  above  their  barrooms),  $2,500.00; 
for  household  expenses  of  four  families,  $4,000.00  (a 
very  high  estimate),  making  $7,500.00,  the  amount  of 
money  which  the  business  spends  in  the  town,  a very 
liberal  calculation.  That  is,  for  every  four  dollars 
paid  over  the  bar,  oxAyone  comes  back  to  the  financial 
interests  of  the  community!  An  outgo  of  four  dollars 
and  an  income  of  one  dollar:  Surely,  not  much  profit 
in  that  to  any  one  but  the  liquor  men! 

Or,  to  put  the  matter  in  another  way:  For  every 
four  dollars  that  goes  into  any  one  of  those  saloons, 
three  dollars  never  comes  out  again  to  do  business  in 
that  town:  the  grocer  on  one  side  loses  a dollar’s 
trade,  the  market  on  the  other  side  loses  a dollar’s 
trade,  and  the  merchant  across  the  street  also  loses  a 
dollar’s  trade.  And  this  keeps  on  for  every  hour 
throughout  the  year!  These  words  from  President 
David  Starr  Jordan,  of  Leland  Stanford  University, 
are  surely  words  of  wisdom:  “There  is  no  possible 
question  that  business  prosperity  rises  in  any  town  as 
the  saloon  disappears.” 

But  there  are  other  financial  charges  against  the 
saloons,  to  say  nothing  of  tears  and  heartaches.  Con- 
sider a few  of  these:  a dozen  cases  of  sickness  annually, 
due  to  excessive  drinking,  causing  large  expenses;  a 
death  from  consumption  caused  by  drinking;  a divorce 
with  cost  of  court  expenses  brought  about  by  repeated 
intoxication;  a dozen  families  thrown  upon  the  public 
or  private  charity  of  the  town  by  drunken  fathers;  a 
thousand  days  of  labor  lost  because  workmen  went  on 
sprees  (a  loss  of  $2,000.00  a year  at  least);  one  “drunk” 

[91] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


arrested  every  week,  adding  to  police  and  court  ex- 
penses ; a half  dozen  crimes  committed  for  which  liquor 
is  largely  or  wholly  responsible,  entailing  heavy  ex- 
penses upon  taxpayers  for  prosecution  and  upon  friends 
to  defend  the  accused, — and  these  are  only  some  of  the 
more  obvious  financial  losses.  Much  more  than 
enough  to  wipe  out  the  $7,500.00  put  to  the  credit  of  the 
saloons,  leaving  the  $30,000.00  paid  over  their  bars  as 
a dead  loss! 

On  the  other  hand,  let  us  see  what 
How  Money  Spent  could  be  done  annually  for  the  com- 
be  Better  Used  munity  With  the  $30,000.00  worsc  than 


wasted : 

For  a free  village  library $8,000 . 00 

For  a free  district  nurse 1,500 . 00 

For  a course  of  free  lectures 500 . 00 

For  building  a mile  of  good  country  road 5,000 . 00 

For  keeping  six  young  men  and  women  in  college 6,000 . 00 

For  a free  industrial  night  school  for  girls  and  boys 2,000 . 00 

For  a village  band  giving  free  concerts 2,000 . 00 

For  a boys’  club  and  summer  camp 2,000.00 

For  a Day  Nursery 2,000 . 00 

For  Athletic  field  and  sports 1,000 . 00 


$30,000.00 

All  this  will  read  to  some  people  like  a fairy  tale. 
But  it  is  the  statement  of  what  could  be  done  to  bless 
any  village  with  the  money  actually  spent  for  Drink  in 
many  a small  place.  Without  taking  any  account  of 
community  pleasure  and  wholesome  enjoyment,  which 
these  enterprises,  just  named,  would  bring  to  the  people, 
with  no  thought  of  the  moral  and  intellectual  better- 
ment which  would  be  brought  about  by  them,  it  is 
evident  that,  by  the  different  expenditure  of  that  sum 
of  $30,000.00  business  advantages  of  great  value  would 

[92] 


A BUSINESS  PROPOSITION 


accrue  to  such  a village.  The  financial  gains  alone 
would  be  many  fold  greater  than  from  the  trade  (less 
than  $8,000.00)  created  by  the  four  saloons;  which, 
simply  as  a business  proposition,  are  left  with  no  credit 
to  their  name,  while  we  must  charge  them  with  a heavy 
loss  inflicted  upon  the  markets  and  morals  of  the  town. 

Good  men  often  carelessly  declare:  “I 
How  shall  vote  to  keep  the  saloons  in  order  to 

Business  is  j^^lp  busincss!”  Is  that  the  teaching  of  the 

Liquor'*^  Ten  Commandments  and  the  Golden  Rule? 
Tradei  Is  that  the  Master’s  “royal  law  of  love?” 

Can  any  Christian  look  upon  the  Cross  of 
Christ,  and  so  forget  its  supreme  lesson  of  self-sacrifice 
that  he  becomes  willing  to  put  greed  above  the  good  of 
humanity?  Can  any  intelligent  American  citizen 
consider  even  the  business  facts,  as  just  described,  and 
so  completely  renounce  all  respect  for  the  truth  of 
things  as  to  support  a policy,  as  idiotic  financially  as 
it  is  morally  reprehensible? 

Vote  for  the  saloons  to  help  business?  Whose  busi- 
ness? The  business  of  the  undertaker  and  the  grave 
digger!  Whose  business?  The  business  of  policeman 
and  jailer!  Whose  business?  The  business  of  the 
brothel,  the  asylum,  and  the  poor  farm!  Whose 
business?  The  business  of  courts  respecting  divorce, 
criminals,  and  neglected  children!  \^ose  business? 
The  business  forced  upon  forsaken  women,  who  wash 
and  scrub  to  support  the  suffering  family!  Whose 
business?  The  business  of  the  charity  worker,  who 
toils  to  help  the  mothers  in  the  homes  made  desolate 
by  drunkards! 

Vote  for  the  saloon  to  help  business?  But  that  vote 
will  make  taxes  higher,  accidents  more  frequent,  and 
labor  less  skillful.  Vote  for  the  saloon  to  help  business? 
But  that  vote  will  tend  to  keep  the  laborer  from  having 

[93] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


a bank  account,  from  owning  a house,  and  from  sending 
his  boy  to  college ! V ote  for  the  saloon  to  help  business  ? 
But  that  vote  will  send  out  of  town  three  dollars  for 
every  dollar  that  it  spends  in  town!  Before  you  cast 
that  vote,  look  at  it  in  the  white  light  of  truth,  if  not 
in  the  divine  light  of  love,  and  see  what  a horrible 
thing  you  propose  to  do.  You  will  vote  not  only  to 
injure  business,  but  also  to  ruin  manhood,  upon  which 
all  trade  and  commerce  are  based.  That  is  not  to  be 
a Christian,  but  that  is  to  act  like  a pagan,  and  like 
a pagan  at  his  worst. 


[94] 


“Alcohol  and  vice,  not  always,  but  with  appalling  frequency,  go 
hand-in-hand.  The  drink  habit  arouses  physical  instincts  and  pas- 
sions, and  at  the  same  time  weakens  both  prudence  and  honor.  So 
our  sons  fall  who  might  stand,  and  our  daughters  meet  temptation 
with  defenses  down.  The  relation  of  alcohol  to  those  physical  and 
moral  tragedies  of  sex  that  are  now  being  studied  with  new  deter- 
mination and  hope,  is  revealed  in  the  fact  that  the  commonest 
method  of  legal  procedure  against  a brothel  in  an  American  city 
today  is  by  instituting  a search  for  liquor.  If  sex  health  and  honor 
are  essential,  as  they  are  coming  to  be  seen  to  be,  to  personal  hap- 
piness, family  life  and  race  perpetuity,  parents  are  sure  increasingly 
to  array  themselves  unqualifiedly  against  the  alcoholic  drink  habit.” 
Charles  W.  Birtwell,  General  Secretary  Massachusetts  Society  for 
Sex  Education. 

“What  ought  not  to  be  used  as  a beverage,  ought  not  to  be  sold  as 
such.  What  the  good  of  the  community  requires  us  to  expel,  no  man 
has  a moral  right  to  supply.  That  intemperance  is  dreadifully  multi- 
plied by  the  number  of  licensed  shops  for  the  retailing  of  spirits,  we 
all  know.  That  these  should  be  shut,  everj'  good  man  desires.” 
W'illiam  Ellery  Channing,  Address  on  Temperance,  1837. 

“The  use  of  alcoholic  drinks  is  neither  necessary  nor  beneficial  to  the 
healthy  child,  but  on  the  contrary  works  direct  harm  against  its 
development,  undermining  its  health  and  prejudicing  its  moral  edu- 
cation.” Prof.  Rudolph  Demme,  1891.  Connected  for  a generation 
with  the  Jenner  Hospital  for  Children,  Berne. 

“The  happiness,  the  security,  and  the  progress  of  the  nation  depend 
more  upon  the  solution  of  the  liquor  problem  than  upon  the  disposi- 
tion of  any  other  question  confronting  the  people  of  our  country.” 
John  Mitchell,  the  Champion  of  Labor,  Address,  Feb.  £2,  1910. 

“The  ethics  and  religion  which  will  tolerate  alcoholism  is  the  ethics 
and  religion  of  death.  For  not  only  is  alcoholism  the  cause  of  nu- 
merous diseases,  it  leads  directly  and  indirectly  to  ruin.  The  cost  of 
alcohol  in  human  life  far  exceeds  that  of  war  and  the  victims  of  al- 
coholism do  not  die  out.  They  drag  miserably  through  a sick  life 
and  transmit  their  decay  to  following  generations.”  Prof.  T.  G. 
Masaryk,  University  of  Prague. 


[96] 


MORTALITY  OF  CHILDREN  OF  DRINKING  MOTHERS 
Children  in  Elack  Died  Under  Two  Years — 55  per  cent 


' - ■■  '■  -iW- 


MORTALITY  OF  CHILDREN  OF  SOBER  MOTHERS 
Cliildren  in  Black  Died  Under  Two  Years  — 23  percent 


Copyright  1913.  The  Scientific  Temperance  Federation,  Boston 

The  sober  mothers  were  relatives  of  the  drinking  mothers  and  had  sober  husbands 
Statistics  were  of  62S  women  compiled  by  Dr.  W.  C.  Sullivan,  England 


CHAPTER  V 

PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


Parents  are  under  very  heavy  responsibilities  to  their 
children  in  two  directions : that  they  give  them  a noble 
inheritance  and  that  they  provide  them  an  ennobling 
environment.  One  is  the  biological  endowment  trans- 
mitted, the  other  is  the  educational  condition  main- 
tained. The  blood  heritage  and  the  home  nurture. 
In  both  these  directions,  temperance  plays  an  impor- 
tant part.  The  abstinence  of  parents  reports  itseK 
in  the  child,  as  an  invaluable  hfe  asset.  The  example 
which  the  parents  set  in  the  non-use  or  avoidance  of 
liquors  and  the  proper  instruction  respecting  their  evU 
effects,  are  among  the  most  valuable  influences  that 
can  play  upon  the  child’s  expanding  life. 

It  has  long  been  known  that  drunkenness  leads  to 
the  degeneracy  of  offspring,  but  it  has  not  until  re- 
cently been  realized  that  ordinary  drinking  commonly 
causes  similar  results.  It  has,  however,  been  demon- 
strated, within  the  last  few  years,  that  the  use  of  liquor 
leads  not  only  to  race  suicide,  but  also  to  the  ruin  of 
childhood.  These  startling  and  abundant  facts  should 
be  widely  known  and  carefully  heeded  by  all  parents. 

The  most  exhaustive  and  convincing 
fad  investigations  along  this  line  are  the  pains- 

taking studies  of  Prof.  Taav  Laitinen,  M.  D., 
of  Helsingfors,  Finland.  In  1903,  he  began  this  work, 
and  being  a physician  with  an  extensive  practice, 
he  had  the  opportunity  of  becoming  acquainted  with 

[97] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  conditions  of  a great  number  of  families,  both  alco- 
hol-drinking and  non-drinking.  He  studied  as  many  as 
5,845  families,  with  20,008  children  among  them.  He 
sent  out  circulars  asking  parents  a series  of  questions, 
beginning: 

“Fellow-countrymen, — You  will  do  a great  service 
to  science  if  you  will  conscientiously  fill  in  this  circular 
respecting  your  new-born  child  dming  the  first  eight 
months  of  its  life,  and  return  the  circular  in  the  en- 
closed envelope  to  Prof.  Taav  Laitinen.”  Then  follow 
sixteen  questions,  in  which  are  included  these  three: — 
“Are  the  parents  alcohol  drinkers  or  abstainers?”  Both? 
(i.  e.,  both  parents).  “To  what  extent  do  they  in- 
dulge, (state  if  daily) ; also  whether  beer,  com  brandy, 
wine,  brandy,  or  any  other  form  of  alcohol,  or  all  of 
these)?”  “State  whether  the  maternal  grandfather 
drank  alcohol.”  To  these  circulars  the  professor  had 
received  2,125  answers  carefully  filled  in,  when  he  wrote 
the  paper  on  “A  Contribution  to  the  Study  of  the  In- 
fluence of  Alcohol  on  the  Degeneration  of  Offspring” 
(International  Congress  on  Alcoholism,  London,  1909). 
He  says,  “When  I use  the  term  ‘abstainer,’  I mean  a 
person  who  has  never  taken  alcohol,  or  at  least  not  since 
his  marriage.  By  the  term  ‘moderate’  a person  who 
takes  no  more  alcohol  than  corresponds  to  one  glass  of 
beer  a day;  and  by  the  term  ‘drinker,’  a person  who 
drinks  daily  more  than  the  equivalent  of  one  glass 
Finnish  beer  (about  4 per  cent,  alcohol).” 

The  tables  made  out  according  to  the  answers  to  the 
circulars  are  most  striking.  The  children  of  the  ab- 
stainers weigh  on  an  average  most  at  birth,  the  children 
of  the  moderates,  or  one-glass-of-beer  parents  come  next, 
while  the  children  of  those  who  take  more  than  one  glass 
of  beer  and  are  classed  as  drinkers,  are  the  smallest. 
And  the  difference  in  weight  increases  for  the  whole  of 

[98] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


the  eight  months  after  birth,  for  the  children  of  the 
abstainers  develop  fastest,  those  of  the  moderates  next, 
while  the  drinker’s  children  develop  the  most  slowly. 
“In  my  opinion,”  adds  the  doctor,  “a  heavier  and  more 
rapidly  developing  child  would  have  a better  chance  in 
life  than  a lighter  and  more  slowly  developing  child.” 

As  regards  the  cutting  of  teeth,  the  same  difference 
was  found.  At  the  end  of  the  eighth  month,  of  the 
children  of  abstainers  27-5  per  cent,  were  toothless, 
moderates  33-9  per  cent,,  drinkers  42-3  per  cent.  The 
average  number  of  teeth  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  month 
was  about  as  follows:  Per  child  of  abstainers  2-5  per 
cent.,  moderates  2-1  per  cent.,  drinkers  1-5  per  cent. 
These  last-named  facts  tend  to  verify  the  more  and 
less  rapid  development  of  the  respective  children,  and 
show  the  retarding  influence  upon  the  children  of  the 
consumption  of  alcohol  by  their  parents. 

The  proportion  of  deaths  follows  the 
Mo^taHty  same  rule.  For  abstainers’  children  it  was 
13  per  cent.,  moderates’  children,  23  per 
cent.,  drinkers’  children,  32  per  cent.  Besides  sending 
out  these  circulars  the  professor  thoroughly  studied  in 
a little  country  town  where  the  daily  habits  of  the  in- 
habitants are  known  to  everybody,  59  drinking  and  50 
non-drinking  families  living  in  similar  circumstances. 
Of  the  children  born  to  the  non-drinking  families  18 
per  cent,  have  died  and  1 per  cent,  are  weakly.  Of  the 
children  of  the  drinking  parents  24  per  cent,  have  died 
and  8 per  cent,  of  the  survivors  are  weakly. 

“If  we  reflect  upon  the  facts  above-mentioned,” 
comments  Prof.  Laitinen,  “we  find  that  all  observa- 
tions, whether  made  on  a large  or  a small  scale,  point 
in  the  same  direction,  namely,  that  the  alcohol-drinking 
of  parents,  even  in  small  quantities  (about  one  glass  of 

[99] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


beer  a day),  has  exercised  a degenerative  influence  upon 
their  offspring.” 

In  view  of  these  faets,  we  may  well  approve  the  start- 
ling words  of  Dr.  Karl  Graeter  of  Basel,  who  in  1909 
declared:  “The  crime,  therefore,  for  men  and  women  is 
to  intoxicate  their  children  before  they  are  born!” 

The  Impressive  biological  facts,  here  stated,  are 
strikingly  confirmed  by  the  careful  experiments  of  Prof. 
Clifton  F.  Hodge  of  Clark  University,  Worcester,  Mass., 
who  fed  alcohol  to  some  dogs  and  compared  the  offspring 
with  those  of  other  dogs,  similar  in  all  other  respects, 
except  that  they  were  not  given  any  alcohol.  The 
results  are  as  follows:  Of  23  whelps  born  in  four 
fitters  to  a pair  of  tipplers,  9 were  born  dead,  8 were 
deformed,  and  only  4 were  viable  and  seemingly  normal. 
Meantime,  a pair  of  normal  kennel-companions  pro- 
duced 45  whelps,  of  which  41  were  viable  and  normal — 
a percentage  of  90.2  against  the  17.  4 per  cent,  of  viable 
alcoholics.  (Physiological  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Prob- 
lem, vol.  1,  pp.  363-368.  1903.)  This  and  many 

other  similar  experiments  warrant  the  conclusion  of 
Prof.  Winfield  S.  Hall,  M.  D.  (Northwestern  University 
Medical  College,  Chicago):  “Alcohol  given  in  minute 
quantities  to  lower  animals  seriously  impairs  fecimdity. 
It  leads  to  race  suicide.”  (Laboratory  Researches  on 
the  Action  of  Alcohol.  U.  S.  Senate  Document,  No.  48, 
p.  19,  1909.) 

An  Austrian  investigator.  Dr.  Josef 
Diseases  in  Schweighofer,  published  a year  ago  (1912) 
Children  fh®  conclusions  of  his  researches  along 
the  fines  of  alcoholic  degeneracy  among  the 
people  of  the  duchy  of  Salzburg.  He  writes:  “The 
study  shows  that  the  children  of  drinkers  develop  mental 
diseases  much  oftener  than  the  children  of  parents  who 
are  themselves  mentally  diseased  but  not  alcoholic. 

[ 100] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


That  is,  an  existing  tendency  to  mental  weakness  be- 
comes fixed  under  the  effects  of  alcohol  while  without 
it,  there  may  be  recovery.  Seventy-five  per  cent,  of 
the  insane  patients  in  Salzburg  had  notorious  drinkers 
for  parents.” 

One  of  the  most  notable  investigations  of  this  sub- 
ject was  conducted  for  ten  years,  ending  in  1889,  by 
Prof.  Rudolph  Demme,  of  the  Jenner  Hospital  for  Chil- 
dren, Berne,  who  carefully  compared  the  descendants 
of  ten  totally-abstaining  families  with  those  of  ten  drink- 
ing families.  The  former  had  61  children  of  whom  5 
died  in  infancy,  and  six  were  defective, — 50,  or  82  per 
cent,  being  normal.  The  intemperate  families  had  57 
children,  of  whom  25  died  in  infancy  (five  times  as 
many  as  in  the  other  case),  and  twenty -two  were  de- 
fective,— only  10,  or  17.5  per  cent,  being  normal! 
What  striking  contrasts:  Temperance  producing  82  per 
cent,  normal  children,  and  Drink  only  17.5  per  cent, 
normal  children.  Temperance  having  18  per  cent, 
defective,  while  Drink  caused  82.5  per  cent,  defective 
children!  A European  teacher  of  varied  and  wide 
experience,  Mr.  Salzlechner,  made  this  report  to  the 
Hungarian  Government:  “The  children  in  those  places 
where  there  are  more  opportunities  for  drinking  are  men- 
tally less  gifted.  Those  where  alcohol  is  less  used,  are 
more  talented  and  of  better  quahty  morally.  It  is  a 
frequent  complaint  that  the  youth  of  wine  regions 
are  raw  and  coarse.” 

The  result  of  an  inquiry  made  by  Dr.  W. 
Dr^en  (Mcdical  Officer  in  His  Majesty’s 

Mothers  Prison  Service,  Great  Britain),  as  to  the 
children  of  120  drunken  mothers,  he  de- 
scribes in  these  words:  “Of  600  children  born  of  120 
drunken  mothers,  335  (55.8  per  cent.)  died  in  infancy 
or  were  still-born,  several  of  the  survivors  were  men- 

[101] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


tally  defective,  and  as  many  as  4.1  per  cent,  were 
epileptic.  Many  of  these  women  had  female  relat- 
ives, sisters  or  daughters,  of  sober  habits  and  married 
to  sober  husbands.  On  comparing  the  death-rate 
amongst  the  children  of  the  sober  mothers  with  that 
amongst  the  children  of  the  drunken  women  of  the 
same  stock,  the  former  was  foimd  to  be  23.9  per  cent., 
the  latter  55.2  per  cent.,  or  nearly  two  and  a half 
times  as  much.  It  was  further  observed  that  in  the 
drunken  families  there  was  a progressive  rise  in  the 
death-rate  from  the  earher  to  the  later  born  children.” 
(“Alcoholism”:  Chapter  on  Degeneration.) 

It  is  needless,  however,  to  cumber  these  pages  with 
additional  testimonies  on  this  point,  although  a great 
mass  of  instructive  and  impressive  conclusions  of  scien- 
tific research  could  easily  be  brought  together.  But  it 
would  simply  confirm  the  general  statements  just  made. 
In  concluding  this  brief  discussion  of  the  important 
subject,  the  words  of  an  eminent  American  author. 
Dr.  Henry  S.  Williams,  may  well  be  given: 

“If  additional  evidence  of  the  all-pervading  influence  of  alcohol 
is  required,  it  may  be  found  in  the  thought-compelling  fact  that  the 
effects  are  not  limited  to  the  individual  vho  imbibes  the  alcohol, 
but  may  be  passed  on  to  his  descendants.  The  offspring  of  alcoholics 
show  impaired  vitality  of  the  most  deep-seated  character.  Sometimes 
this  impaired  vitality  is  manifested  in  the  non-viability  of  the  offspring; 
sometimes  in  deformity;  very  frequently  in  neuroses,  which  may  take 
the  severe  forms  of  chorea,  infantile  convulsions,  epilepsy,  or  idiocy. 
In  examining  into  the  history  of  2554  idiotic,  epileptic,  hysterical, 
or  weak-minded  children  in  the  institution  at  Bicetre,  France, 
Boimneville  found  that  over  41  per  cent,  had  alcoholic  parents.  In 
more  than  9 per  cent,  of  the  cases,  it  was  ascertained  that  one  or  both 
parents  were  under  the  influence  of  alcohol  at  the  time  of  procrea- 
tion,— a fact  of  positively  terrifjdng  significance,  when  we  reflect 
how  alcohol  Inflames  the  passions  while  subordinating  the  judgment 
and  the  ethical  scruples  by  which  these  passions  are  normally  held 

[102] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


in  check.  Of  similar  import  are  the  observations  of  Bezzola  and  of 
Hartmann  that  a large  proportion  of  the  idiots  and  criminals  in 
Switzerland  were  conceived  during  the  season  of  the  year  when  the 
custom  of  the  country  leads  to  a disproportionate  consumption  of 
alcohol.”  Alcohol:  How  it  Affects  the  Individual,  the  Community, 
and  the  Race,  p.  44.  1909. 

Many  years  ago,  Dr.  Samuel  G.  Howe,  the  great 
philanthropist,  in  studying  the  condition  of  the  children 
in  an  institution  in  South  Boston,  found  that  one-half 
of  the  imbecile  children  there  were  the  offspring  of  in- 
temperate parents. 

There  has  recently  been  published  in  a 
popular  American  magazine  a sensational 
Refuted  article,  which  is  full  of  mistakes  and  which 
will  do  much  mischief.  It  is  an  attempt  to 
popularize  the  so-called  “findings”  of  the  Galton 
Laboratory  for  Eugenics,  London,  as  given  in  a Memoir, 
No.  X,  issued  some  three  years  ago,  1910,  bearing  the 
names  of  Prof.  Karl  Pearson  and  Miss  Ethel  M.  Elder- 
ton.  The  contention  of  the  Memoir  is  that  alcoholism 
in  the  parent  does  not  affect  the  offspring.  In  fact, 
it  is  there  claimed  that  certain  statistics  respecting 
conditions  in  Manchester  and  Edinburgh  prove  that 
the  children  of  drinkers  were  at  least  equal,  (if  not 
stronger)  in  body  and  mind,  to  the  children  of  sober 
parents. 

This  colossal  error  needs  instant  and  vigorous  cor- 
rection, and  every  one  interested  in  temperance  should 
take  especial  pains  to  spread  broadcast  the  facts.  Two 
preliminary  observations  may  be  briefly  set  forth: 
(1)  Aside  from  the  question  of  heredity,  the  case  against 
liquor  is  overwhelmingly  strong.  This  is  a powerful 
argument,  but  the  general  and  obvious  evils  of  Drink 
(apart  from  this)  ought  to  be  decisive  with  every 
person  of  conscience  and  intelligence.  (2)  This  Galton 

[103] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Memoir,  it  ought  to  be  remembered,  is  only  one  bit  of 
testimony,  even  when  taken  at  its  face  value,  in  a 
department  where  a cloud  of  witnesses  furnish  volu- 
minous contradictory  evidence. 

What,  in  brief,  are  the  facts?  W’hen  this  Memoir 
was  issued,  it  was  given  a qualified  approval  by  the 
British  Medical  Journal,  probably  the  highest  authority 
in  the  world.  Then  a hot  controversy  broke  out,  which 
lasted  for  several  months  in  this  J ournal,  in  the  London 
Times,  and  in  other  periodicals.  The  critics  completely 
riddled  the  Memoir,  until  it  was  torn  into  shreds  and 
tatters!  Prof.  Karl  Pearson  (who  as  a specialist  in 
another  department  is  an  eminent  scientist)  repeatedly 
shifted  his  ground  and  qualified  his  statements.  He 
came  out  of  the  controversy  with  decided  loss  of  reputa- 
tion. In  every  respect  his  treatment  of  the  eminent 
scientist  of  Finland,  Prof.  Laitinen,  was  certainly 
regrettable.  A large  number  of  distinguished  writers, 
of  world  renown,  pointed  out  the  numerous  errors  in 
this  Memoir,  from  various  points  of  \dew.  The  most 
crushing  criticisms  were  presented  by  Sir  Thomas  P. 
Whittaker,  Sir  Victor  Horsley,  M.  D.,  and  the  eminent 
medical  authority.  Dr.  C.  W.  Saleeby,  who  had  himseh 
worked  in  the  slum  district  of  Edinburgh  where  the 
statistics  chiefly  used  in  the  Memoir  had  been  gathered 
and  who,  therefore,  knew  first  hand  a great  deal  more 
about  the  real  situation  than  Pearson  and  Elderton 
themselves ! Dr.  Saleeby  (the  author  of  a notable  book 
on  “Parenthood  and  Race  Culture”)  wrote  of  this 
Memoir:  “The  most  tragic  instance  within  my  ex- 
perience of  the  miscarriage  of  patient  labor  and  sincere 
intention.”  (British  Journal  of  Inebriety,  April  1911, 
p.  197.) 

As  a result  of  the  controversy,  so  clear  and  crushing 
was  the  evidence  against  it,  the  editor  of  the  British 

[ 104] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 

Medical  Journal  withdrew  his  qualified  indorsement 
of  the  “findings,”  which  had  been  completely  disproven. 

But,  apparently,  without  any  knowledge  of  these 
facts,  an  American  writer,  seeking  a sensational  topic, 
proceeds  to  parade  this  discredited  Memoir  before  the 
American  public,  giving  no  hint  of  its  true  character, 
and  ignoring  its  demolition  by  competent  authorities. 
This  is  a performance  that  has  mightily  pleased  our 
brewers  and  distillers;  but  it  is  not  creditable  to  the 
writer  of  the  article,  and  it  places  the  editors  and  pub- 
lishers of  the  magazine  in  anything  but  a favorable 
light.  Surely  an  apology  is  due  from  them. 

What  is  the  truth  of  the  matter?  Simply  this,  as 
plainly  shown  by  the  controversy  just  described,  and 
it  is  as  clear  as  daylight  to  anyone  who  will  take  the 
pains  to  read  the  Memoir  itself:  the  so-called  statistics 
are  utterly  worthless  for  the  'purpose  for  which  they  were 
used. 

In  the  first  place,  these  statistics  were 
gathered  from  one  of  the  worst  slum  dis- 
tricts of  Edinburgh,  not  by  experts  to  be 
used  in  such  an  investigation  as  this,  but  by  agents  of 
a charity  organization,  and  set  down  somewhat  care- 
lessly with  another  object  in  view.  It  seems  astonish- 
ing that  any  one  with  claim  to  scientific  accuracy  should 
resort  to  such  material  in  discussing  Drink  and  eugenics. 
AsSir  Victor  Horsley,  M.  D.,  remarks:  “No  conclusion 
whatever  ought  to  have  been  drawn  from  such  imper- 
fect data  as  they  present  to  us.”  (Alcohol  and  the  Hu- 
man Body;  p.  246).  In  the  second  place,  there  is  here 
no  comparison  between  a large  number  of  children  in 
the  families  of  drinkers  and  an  equal  number  taken 
from  total  abstinence  families,  the  only  fair  method  of 
comparison.  The  comparison  in  the  Memoir  is  between 
the  children  of  “moderate”  drinkers  and  those  of 

[105] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


“heavy”  drinkers,  and  even  this  comparison  is  not 
scientifically  made.  Out  of  the  nearly  800  families 
superficially  studied  in  this  Scotch  slum,  only  18  are 
set  down  as  temperate.  And  even  here  we  are  not  told 
how  long  these  famihes  had  been  temperate,  nor  are 
we  informed  under  what  condition  their  few  children 
were  born, — very  important  considerations.  As  many 
critics  have  pointed  out,  conclusions  so  reached  are 
utterly  vicious,  because  there  is  no  real  comparison 
between  the  two  classes  of  children;  the  corrective 
factor,  an  equal  number  of  children  in  total  abstinence 
families,  is  wholly  ignored.  Surely  it  needs  no  argument 
to  show  that  an  investigation  narrowly  limited  to  the 
children  in  a slum  district,  without  any  reference  what- 
ever to  the  children  in  wholesome  homes,  is  a procedme 
which  does  not  deserve  the  name  of  science. 

A recent  and  competent  writer  makes  this  statement 
in  reference  to  this  subject;  “As  the  matter  now  stands, 
the  social  worker  is  still  justified  in  regarding  alcohol  as 
a race  poison.  The  facts  remain  that  parents,  many 
of  them  of  the  best  stock,  are  voluntarily  injuring  them- 
selves and  their  offspring  through  an  over  indulgence  in 
alcohol.”  (Alcohol  and  Parentage.  By  Prof.  C.  R. 
Davis.  The  Survey,  Sept.  20,  1913;  p.  738). 

To  this  may  be  added  the  testimony  of  a dozen  doc- 
tors, connected  with  the  schools  of  Charlottenburg, 
Germany,  who  state  that  not  one-ihird  of  the  pupils 
have  normal  physical  powers,  and  one  of  them.  Dr. 
Lichtenberg,  asserts:  “Without  a doubt  this  degenera- 
tion among  school  youth,  which  was  not  known  at  all 
some  decades  ago,  is  an  essential  result  of  the  drinking 
customs  which  have  penetrated  ever  more  deeply  into 
popular  life.  ” 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  is  clearly  put  by 
Sir  Thomas  P.  Whittaker  in  these  words;  “\Mien  it 

[106] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


is  seen,  as  has  now  been  shown,  how  utterly  inadequate 
and  completely  untrustworthy  the  data  are  for  the 
purpose  for  which  it  has  been  used  by  Prof.  Pearson, 
one  can  only  marvel  that  any  one  admittedly  so  able 
and  brilliant  in  some  directions  as  he  is,  should  blunder 
so  egregiously  and  reason  so  faultily.” 

Obviously,  the  facts  respecting  the  influence  of  Drink 
upon  offspring  must  appeal  most  powerfully  to  all 
right-minded  parents.  Nothing  is  stronger  or  nobler 
in  human  life  than  the  parental  instinct:  the  love  of 
children.  It  is  clear  that  the  parent’s  attitude  toward 
Drink  has  much  to  do  with  the  welfare  of  the  new  genera- 
tion. To  indulge  in  liquors  means  to  them  a curse; 
to  abstain  assures  many  blessings. 

The  friends  of  hquor  often  contend  that 

The  Question  , , . p • , 

of  Immunity  many  temperance  advocates  fall  into  serious 
error  by  their  failure  to  recognize  that  by 
long  use  the  human  system  becomes  immune  to  alcohol, 
so  that,  while  Drink  at  first  does  these  bad  things,  in 
time  the  body  accustoms  itself  to  it,  and  escapes  farther 
injury.  For  confirmation,  appeal  is  made  to  its  more 
serious  damage  to  savages  and  to  beginners  in  drinking, 
of  whom  it  is  said  that  “they  cannot  carry  the  stuff 
like  an  old  toper.”  An  illustration  in  support  of  this 
claim  is  sought  in  the  case  of  tobacco. 

There  seems  on  the  surface  to  be  some  support  for 
this  claim.  But  certain  vital  facts  are  ignored  by  these 
defenders  of  alcohol: 

(1)  When  a moderate  drinker  goes  to  a hospital 
for  a serious  surgical  operation,  the  doctor  does  not 
tell  him  that  he  is  free  from  the  dangers  due  to  liquor 
because  he  has  been  a drinker  for  many  years.  The 
longer  the  man  has  been  indulging,  the  more  dubiously 
the  surgeon  shakes  his  head.  The  same  is  true  whenever 
the  drinker  becomes  sick  with  any  disease. 

[107] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


(2)  No  insurance  company  acts  upon  this  policy. 
Its  agents  never  say  to  a confirmed  sot:  We  will  gladly 
write  a policy  for  you,  because  you  have  been  drinking 
so  long  that  you  are  now  immune  to  the  evil  effects 
of  alcohol.  What  they  do  say  is  the  exact  opposite. 

(3)  Scientific  investigations  show  that  the  degeneracy 
of  offspring  born  to  a drinker  late  in  life  is  more  frequent  ' 
and  more  marked  than  in  children  born  soon  after 
marriage,  proving  that  the  system  acquires  no  such 
immunity. 

(4)  It  is  with  alcohol  as  with  other  narcotics  like 
opium:  the  amount  afterwards  used  would  have  killed 
the  beginner,  though  the  evil  effects  of  the  smaller 
quantity  first  used  are  in  some  respects  more  apparent. 
However,  both  the  opium  fiend  and  the  irresponsible 
inebriate  prove  that  the  human  system  never  becomes 
immune  to  these  poisons. 

(5)  Even  if  there  were  a fraction  of  truth  in  this 
contention,  the  arguments  for  abstinence  hold  good, 
for  the  evils  actually  flowing  from  Drink  along  many 
channels,  are  sufficient  to  condemn  it  and  lead  the 
parent,  the  patriot,  the  Christian  to  avoid  it. 

In  this  connection,  emphasis  needs  to  be 
placed  on  the  one  supreme  reason  why 
Morality  parents  should  vigorously  oppose  the  Drink 
Habit  and  the  Liquor  Traffic,  namely: 
the  evil  influence  of  alcohol  upon  sex  morality.  There 
is  a growing  interest  in  sex  hygiene.  Those  best  in- 
formed respecting  the  problem  reahze  that  Drink  plays 
a chief  part  in  the  initiative  of  sensuahty  and  also  in 
the  maintenance  of  prostitution.  Wise  leaders  are 
demanding:  We  must  separate  the  use  of  liquor  from 
the  vice  problem.  This  is  obvious.  But  such  separa- 
tion can  come  only  by  stopping  the  use  and  sale  of 
beer  and  whisky.  Therefore,  the  first  thing  that  parents, 

[108] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


who  want  to  make  sure  that  their  children  grow  up 
to  lead  clean  lives,  must  do  is  to  exert  themselves  to 
destroy  the  Drink  Curse,  root  and  branch. 

A full  appreciation  of  this  supremely 
The  Duty  important  truth  is  an  essential  equipment 
for  the  best  family  life.  It  must  be  heeded 
more  in  the  future  than  it  has  been  in  the 
past.  Parents  will  come  to  see  that  here  is  a matter 
that  must  not  be  neglected.  They  must  realize  that 
the  most  important  thing  is,  not  simply  to  provide 
their  children  an  education,  but  so  to  live  themselves 
that  their  children  shall  have  minds  and  bodies  capable 
of  education,  untainted  by  alcoholic  degeneracy.  In- 
dulgence in  liquor  on  the  part  of  the  parent,  is  likely 
to  report  itself  in  the  offspring,  by  lessening  mental 
capacity,  or  weakening  the  body,  so  that  education  is 
seriously  limited.  Why  so  anxious  for  the  child’s 
education,  but  so  blind  to  the  evils  of  Drink  which  may 
put  into  the  child  a mind  incapable  of  the  best  educa- 
tion.? Why  labor  and  sacrifice  so  strenuously  in  order 
to  give  the  boy  a good  financial  start  when  he  becomes 
a man,  but  at  the  same  time  so  freely  use  liquor  that  the 
boy  will  begin  life  with  such  a bad  inheritance  that  he 
never  can  succeed  in  business?  These  parental  re- 
sponsibilities must  more  and  more  be  laid  to  heart. 

But  in  addition  to  this  important  matter 
^s^ction  inheritance,  there  is  another  phase  of 

Needed  Ihc  subject  which  needs  attention — en- 
vironment, nurture,  instruction.  The  par- 
ent is  under  obligation  to  see  to  it  that  the  child  is 
put  in  possession  of  the  vital  facts,  which  constitute 
the  temperance  gospel.  Formerly,  emphasis  was 
chiefly  placed,  in  this  connection,  on  the  obligation  of 
the  parent  to  live  a sober  life  in  order  to  set  the  proper 
example  before  the  child.  This  responsibility  grows 

[109] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


heavier  as  the  years  pass.  But  it  is  evident,  today, 
that  the  parent  must  do  something  more  than  this. 
Parents  must  provide  a thorough  education  in  tem- 
perance for  their  children;  a comprehensive  training  that 
includes,  not  only  example  and  environment,  but  care- 
ful nurture  and  painstaking  instruction.  They  must 
see  to  it  that  the  young  people  who  grow  up  in  their 
homes  are  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  facts  re- 
specting the  effects  of  the  use  of  liquor  upon  body  and 
mind,  and  with  the  menace  of  alcohol  to  home  and  school, 
to  church  and  state. 

These  facts  may  be  grouped  under  three  heads  as 
follows: 

I.  It  is  well  for  parents  to  put  in  practice  the  teachings 
of  medical  science  that,  in  the  little  illnesses  that  come 
to  them  and  their  children,  there  is  always,  on  the  whole, 
some  better  remedy  than  an  alcoholic  drink.  Many 
times  a little  liquor  does  apparently  work  like  a charm. 
But  something  else  would  have  accomplished  the  same 
result  without  entailing  the  serious  consequences  which 
follow  the  use  of  alcohol. 

In  the  past,  as  we  all  know,  resort  was 
made  to  liquor  for  almost  everything;  to 
cure  all  aches  and  pains;  to  ward  off  dis- 
ease; to  protect  against  cold  and  heat;  to 
prepare  for  unusual  exertion;  to  rest  from 
fatigue  and  exhaustion;  to  drown  sorrow  and  distress. 
We  now  know  that  in  every  such  incident  of  life  the 
use  of  liquor  is  not  only  harmful  but  deceptive.  The 
help  which  it  seems  to  give  is  in  reality,  as  a rule,  perma- 
nent injury.  The  momentary  relief  or  exhilaration 
is  followed  by  serious  reactions.  The  wise  mother  will, 
therefore,  from  now  on,  refrain  from  using  hquors  as 
medicines,  not  only  in  order  to  set  a better  example, 
but  to  save  herself  and  her  family.  If  one  is  in  a chill 

[ 1101 


The  Use 
of  Alcohol 
as  a 

Medicine 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


from  exposure,  hot  water  is  better  than  whisky.  So, 
in  a hundred  cases,  it  is  far  wiser  to  do  something  else 
than  to  use  the  old-fashioned,  but  now  discredited 
“toddy.”  Especially  ought  mothers  to  avoid  all  use 
of  “patent  medicines,”  which  generally  contain  liquor 
or  opium.  A bath,  spirits  of  ammonia,  or  other  simple 
means  will  accomplish  better  results  than  liquor,  with 
no  evil  effects  to  follow.  Physicians  might  do  much  to 
help  the  temperance  cause  and  also  to  help  humanity, 
by  educating  their  patients  along  this  line. 

An  eminent  American  physician,  the  editor  of  Clinical 
Medicine,  Dr.  Wm.  F.  Waugh  of  Chicago,  gives  this 
testimony:  “Personally  I stand  ready  to  use  alcohol 
at  any  time  when  I believe  it  is  to  the  best  interest  of 
my  patient,  but  I do  not  know  a solitary  use  or  a soli- 
tary case  occurring  in  the  vddest  range  of  medical  prac- 
tice in  which  alcohol  is  the  best  remedy  that  can  be 
applied.”  (The  Alcoholic  Problem,  U.  S.  Senate 
Document,  No.  48,  p.  150,  1909).  The  same  testi- 
mony was  given  on  Feb.  19,  1912,  by  the  then  Lord 
Mayor  of  London,  Sir  Thomas  B.  Crosby,  M.  D.: 
“In  health,  alcohol  is  not  necessary  to  build  up  strong 
bodies;  while  in  illness  I know  of  no  disease  that  alcohol 
can  cure.  My  message  may  be  summed  up  thus: — 
teach  the  children  the  absolute  safety  of  abstinence 
from  all  intoxicants — in  whatever  form  they  may  be 
disguised.” 

A celebrated  German  publicist.  Councilor  Heinrich 
Quensel,  has  laid  down  these  axioms  (among  others) 
for  mothers : 

1.  That  alcohol  retards  the  physical  and  mental 
development  of  children. 

2.  That  alcohol  leads  quickly  to  fatigue,  and  causes 
dullness  and  inattention  in  school. 

3.  That  alcohol  promotes  disobedience  to  parents. 

[Ill] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


4.  That  alcohol  causes  sleeplessness  and  nervous- 
ness. 

5.  That  alcohol  endangers  the  moral  nature  of  the 
child. 

This  advice  is  realized  to  be  doubly  important 
when  we  learn  that  in  several  cities  in  the  United  States, 
the  sad  fact  has  recently  come  to  light  that  children 
have  come  to  the  public  schools  showing  signs  of 
intoxication ! 

A distinguished  physician  of  Brookljm,  Dr.  L.  D. 
Mason,  has  recently  asserted:  “The  time  may  come, 
and  may  not  be  far  distant,  when  the  use  of  alcohol  as 
a remedy  will  be,  if  not  de  jure  at  least  de  facto  malprac- 
tise.”  (“American  Journal  of  Inebriety,”  July,  1913). 
The  following  testimonies  illustrate  the  trend  of  medical 
theory  and  practice.  It  is  a most  significant  circum- 
stance that  at  the  recent  meeting,  in  Milan  (Sept.,  1913), 
of  the  International  Congress  on  Alcohohsm,  there 
was  presented  a message  of  friendly  greeting  signed  by 
21,000  Italian  doctors!  Sir  William  Broadbent,  M.  D., 
formerly  physician  to  King  Edward,  wrote:  “Children 
should  never  know  the  taste  of  any  alcoholic  drink  and 
stimulants  ought  to  be  absolutely  forbidden  during 
school  life.  In  adolescence  they  impair  self-control 
and  are  a source  of  danger.  At  aU  ages  when  taken 
to  relieve  feelings  of  weakness  or  faintness,  serious 
danger  of  falling  under  their  influence  is  close  at  hand.” 
And  these  words  from  Sir  Alexander  Simpson,  M.  D., 
who,  in  lecturing  not  long  ago  to  the  medical  students 
of  Edinburgh,  said:  “You  will  not  be  long  in  practice 
before  you  will  prove  these  five  things:  (1)  Alcohol, 
habitually  used,  can  of  itseK  produce  diseases  from 
which  the  abstainer  is  exempt.  (2)  That  it  will  aggra- 
vate diseases  to  which  all  are  liable.  (3)  That  it  ren- 
[112] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


ders  those  who  habitually  use  it  more  open  to  attacks 
of  various  forms  of  illness.  (4)  That  the  alcoholist  has 
a smaller  chance  of  recovery  from  a fever  or  an  injury 
than  an  abstainer.  (5)  That  in  the  crisis  of  disease 
the  alcoholist  gets  less  benefit  from  stimulants  than 
the  abstainer.” 

These  statements  (and  scores  of  similar  authorities 
may  easily  be  cited)  should  forcibly  warn  parents  never 
to  use  liquor  as  a household  medicine,  as  is  now  so 
often  done  in  many  homes  where  temperance  is  the  rule 
of  life.  The  rapid  decline  in  the  use  of  alcohol  in  hos- 
pitals teaches  the  same  lesson.  (See  Chapter  X.) 

II.  Parents  ought  to  inform  themselves 
Drtakressens  respecting  the  facts  about  alcohol  which 
Opportunity  have  recently  been  brought  to  light  by 
scientific  discovery,  insurance  experience, 
athletic  contests,  and  industrial  tests.  Children  ought 
to  be  taught  that  alcohol  is  the  Great  Deceiver,  that 
the  increase  of  life  which  it  seems  to  produce  is  really 
a destruction  of  life.  They  ought  to  be  made  acquainted 
with  the  wreckage  of  human  life  caused  by  Drink  and 
the  financial  burdens  put  thereby  upon  society,  by 
what  it  does  to  increase  crime,  pauperism,  and  insanity. 
They  ought  to  be  shown  how  drinking,  not  simply 
drunkenness,  leads  to  industrial  ineflSciency,  the  drinker 
having  greater  trouble  to  get  and  hold  a job,  and  less 
chance  of  promotion.  How  it  causes  accidents  and 
makes  the  employer  of  labor  less  willing  to  hire  one 
who  uses  liquor,  the  bar  being  put  up  higher  and  higher 
every  year,  and  especially  in  the  departments  where 
greatest  skill  is  required.  Also,  how  the  experiences  in 
armies  show  that  sober  soldiers  can  endure  more  than 
their  drinking  comrades.  And  it  should  be  made  clear 
to  them  that  the  investigations  of  insurance  companies 
demonstrate  that  total  abstinence  prolongs  life. 

[113] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


There  is  one  group  of  facts,  which  mil 
Drink  Certainly  appeal  most  powerfully  to  boys, 

AtWefic^°™  and  parents  will  do  well  to  impress  them 
Training  upon  the  young  mind  mth  tact  and  vigor, 
namely:  Those  that  show  the  advantage 
of  abstinence  to  one  who  desires  success  in  athletic 
sports.  Surely  any  wholesome  lad  can  be  made  to  real- 
ize that  his  standing  as  an  athlete  depends  upon  tem- 
perance. Indulgence  means  defeat.  He  can  be  made 
to  see  that  liquor  does  to  the  body  what  mixing  alcohol 
with  the  gasoline  would  do  to  the  automobile.  It  puts 
its  machinery  out  of  order,  and  endangers  human  life. 
Or  as  Luther  Burbank  so  well  states  the  case:  It  is 
like  putting  sand  in  a watch. 

In  this  connection,  there  is  one  other 
nq^s  department  which  must  be  briefly  consid- 
students  ered,  that  of  study.  Some  dozen  years  ago, 
a school  official  of  Vienna,  Mr.  E.  Bayer, 
investigated  the  standing  of  over  1,000  children  who 
drank  some  beer  or  wine,  and  compared  their  standing 
with  that  of  other  children  who  abstained  from  drink. 
The  abstainers,  who  stood  “good”  or  “fair”  were 
respectively  42  per  cent,  and  57  per  cent.,  and  those 
who  stood  “poor”  were  9 per  cent.  Those  who  drank 
twice  a day  stood  as  follows:  “good,”  25  per  cent., 
“fair”  58  per  cent.,  “poor,”  18  per  cent.!  That  is, 
the  percentage  of  abstainers  who  stood  “good”  was 
nearly  twice  as  high  as  that  of  the  drinking  children, 
while  the  percentage  of  “poor”  among  the  latter  was 
just  twice  as  large  as  among  the  abstainers.  Comment 
is  unnecessary.  Some  four  years  ago  (1909),  an  in- 
vestigation among  4,000  Italian  children  showed  the 
same  results.  The  same  year,  the  Hungarian  Minister 
of  Education  published,  in  his  official  report,  conclu- 
[114] 


Scholarship  of  Abstaining  and  Drinking  Children 

Investigation  concerned  588  pupils  in  14  classes. 

Drinks  used  included  wine,  beer,  and  rum  in  tea. 


Highest  Scholarship  Decreased!  a .u  t ai  l i i i 

Poorest  Scholarship  Increased  Increased. 

Investigation  by  E.  Eayr,  School  Director,  Vienna,  1899. 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


sions  of  a similar  character,  showing  that  drinking 
children  are  duller,  more  careless,  less  capable  of 
mental  work. 

According  to  the  notable  experiments 
Drink  carried  on  by  Prof.  August  Smith,  at  the 

University  of  Heidelberg,  and  by  Prof. 
HannfuUy  Ragnar  Vogt,  at  the  University  of  Chris- 
tiania, very  moderate  drinking  (from  one 
to  two  glasses  of  mild  beer  a day)  interferes  with  the 
human  memory.  The  former  compared  for  27  days 
what  he  was  able  to  accomplish  in  memorizing  figures, 
using  beer  one  day  and  abstaining  the  next  and  so  on 
for  the  month.  His  ability  to  memorize  was  very  much 
larger  (25  per  cent.)  on  the  days  that  he  did  not  drink. 
Prof.  Vogt  showed  that  it  took  him  much  less  time  to 
memorize  25  lines  of  the  Odyssey  when  he  abstained 
than  when  he  drank  a small  quantity  of  beer.  Such 
indisputable  facts  as  these  must  appeal  with  great  force 
to  all  young  people  who  desire  to  excel  in  scholarship. 
They  also  help  to  destroy  the  ancient  superstition 
that  the  use  of  liquor  strengthens  the  intellect  and  tends 
to  transform  the  ordinary  person  into  a genius. 

By  a wise  use  of  a multitude  of  facts  along  these  and 
similar  lines,  which  may  be  graphically  stated  and 
driven  home  by  innumerable  illustrations,  the  parents 
of  our  land  could,  in  a few  years,  effect  a mighty  rev- 
olution that  would  contribute  much  to  the  progress 
of  civilization  and  the  happiness  of  mankind.  If 
mothers,  especially,  were  equipped  with  these  facts, 
they  could  be  effectively  used  in  many  a casual  remark 
and  made  more  productive  of  good  results  than  any 
direct  preachment.  Often  the  richest  harvest  comes 
from  seed-truths  unobtrusively  dropped  into  young 
minds  with  no  apparent  intent  to  dictate  or  instruct. 

[115] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


III.  One  other  thing  alert  and  thoughtful 
Helpful  parents  can  easily  do;  and  while  the  method 
Literature  simple,  the  results  will  be  abundant  and 

beneficent.  Let  them  see  to  it  that  the 
right  kind  of  temperance  literature  is  always  close 
at  hand  in  the  living  room  of  the  home.  Very  little 
may  be  said  about  it;  perhaps  best,  if  nothing  at  all. 
But  let  it  be  there  to  create  an  atmosphere  and  make  its 
impression.  Somthing  of  this  sort  is  especially  needed 
today  to  offset  the  false  teachings  and  implications 
of  general  literature  on  this  subject.  Even  the  master- 
pieces of  poetry  and  fiction  written  previous  to  the 
present  age,  to  say  nothing  of  what  is  now  printed,  are 
full  of  the  direct  and  indirect  commendation  of  the 
use  of  liquors.  The  young  reader  gets  the  impression 
that  to  drink  is  the  common  habit,  not  only  of  the  low 
and  vulgar,  but  also  of  all  gentlemen;  and  that  all  great 
men,  if  they  did  not  get  drunk,  did  indulge  somewhat. 
He  naturally  infers  that  drinking  is  a manly  habit, 
necessary  to  robust  health,  good  manners,  and  a pleas- 
ant life.  An  antidote  to  this  poison  in  the  literature 
of  the  past  ought  to  be  present  in  the  home.  And  the 
wise  parent  will  see  to  it  that  attractive  pamphlets  and 
periodicals,  giving  the  real  facts  respecting  the  innu- 
merable evils  due  to  the  Drink  Habit,  are  always  at 
hand.  These  will  be  found  effective  aids  to  Christian 
nurture  in  the  family.  Great  care  should  be  taken 
in  the  selection  of  this  temperance  literature.  But  there 
are  a number  of  sources  from  which  material  of  this 
kind,  attractive  and  trustworthy,  may  be  obtained  at 
small  expense,  and  some  valuable  pamphlets  are  dis- 
tributed free. 

Among  the  many  things  that  are  admirable  and 
available  today,  the  following  are  especially  recom- 
[116] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


mended,  because  of  their  sanity,  simplicity,  and  high 
scientific  character: 

(1)  Alcohol  in  Every  Day  Life.  A pamphlet  of  32 
pages  with  quotations,  diagrams,  and  authorities,  pre- 
pared by  the  Scientific  Temperance  Federation,  for 
the  use  of  the  pupils  of  the  Public  Schools  of  Baltimore : 
Clear,  comprehensive,  easily  understood.  Admirable 
in  every  way,  10  cents. 

(2)  Alcohol,  and  the  Human  Body.  By  Sir  Victor 
Horsley,  M.  D.,  and  Mary  D.  Sturge,  M.  D.  Fourth 
Edition,  290  pp.  Macmillan.  1911.  50  cents.  A 
masterpiece  of  scientific  exposition  in  simple  terms. 

(3)  Alcohol:  How  it  Affects  the  Individual,  the  Com- 
munity, and  the  Race.  By  Dr.  Henry  Smith  Williams, 
151  pp.  The  Century  Co.  1909.  50  cents.  A 
popular  and  powerful  presentation  of  facts. 

(4)  On  the  Firing  Line  in  the  Battle  for  Sobriety. 
By  Rev.  Dr.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones.  134  pp.  1910. 
50  Cents.  Unity  Publishing  Co.  Abraham  Lincoln 
Centre,  Chicago.  Three  Thrilling  Stories,  with  many 
important  facts  imbedded:  An  attractive  and  inspiring 
book  for  young  people. 

(5)  The  Anti-Alcohol  Movement  in  Europe.  By 
Ernest  Gordon.  333  pp.  1913.  $1.50.  Fleming  H. 
Revell  Company.  A virile  and  inspiring  survey  of 
Temperance  Facts. 

(6)  Very  valuable  pamphlets,  brief,  plain,  and  es- 
pecially adapted  for  such  purposes,  may  be  obtained 
at  very  slight  cost  by  correspondence  with  the  Scien- 
tific Temperance  Federation  (which  prints  an  admirable 
monthly  paper  for  parents  and  teachers,  “The  Scien- 
tific Temperance  Journal.”);  The  National  Temperance 
Society,  373  Fourth  Ave.,  New  York  City;  The  Pres- 
byterian Temperance  Committee,  Conestoga  Building, 
Pittsburgh;  The  Woman’s  Christian  Temperance  Union, 

[117] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Evanston,  Illinois;  The  Church  of  England  Temperance 
Society,  The  Sanctuary,  London,  S.W.  Also,  the 
United  Kingdom  Alliance,  16  Deansgate,  Manchester, 
England.  The  Unitarian  Temperance  Society  (25 
Beacon  St.,  Boston,  Mass.),  distributes /ree  some  thirty 
valuable  tracts. 

(7)  Once  a year  (February  or  March),  Mrs.  Fannie 
D.  Chase,  its  editor  (Takoma  Park  Station,  Washington, 
D.  C.)  turns  her  monthly  journal  for  yoimg  people, 
“The  Youth’s  Instructor,”  into  a special  temperance 
document,  which  will  be  found  most  attractive  and 
helpful. 

And  perhaps  a word  of  warning,  in  this  connection, 
may  be  timely  concerning  the  book  entitled.  Alcohol: 
the  Sanction  of  its  Use  (now  fortunately  out  of  print), 
by  Dr.  J.  Starke,  a German  VTiter  destitute  of  scientific 
position  or  reputation,  which  has  misled  many  American 
readers.  When  the  translation  was  issued  in  America 
(1907),  it  received  praise  solely  from  Liquor  Journals 
or  those  interested  in  Drink.  It  is  utterly  valueless 
and  perniciously  false  in  statement.  IMiere  its  lan- 
guage is  not  so  vague  that  it  is  useless,  its  assertions  are 
untrue,  without  any  basis  in  present  scientific  teaching. 
It, contains  no  quotations  from  scientific  treatises  and 
it  makes  no  exact  references  to  modern  authorities  in 
this  field  of  research.  The  character  of  the  VTiter  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  he  vaguely  alludes  to  a few  men 
like  Demme,  von  Bunge,  and  Kraepehn  (pp.  305-309) 
as  though  supporters  of  his  views,  while  the  exact 
opposite  is  the  fact! 

The  Ministry  of  Education  in  Germany 
Public”  recently  approved  the  following  Bulletin, 
Document  to  be  distributed  by  certain  departments  of 
the  Board  of  Health ; 


[118] 


PARENTAL  RESPONSIBILITIES 


GIVE  YOUR  CHILDREN  NOT  A DROP  OF  WINe!  NOT  A 
DROP  OF  beer!  not  A DROP  OF  BRANDY ! 

Why? 

Because  alcohol  of  any  kind,  even  in  the  smallest  quantity,  brings 
only  harm  to  the  children. 

Why? 

1.  Alcohol  checks  the  bodily  and  mental  development  of  children. 

2.  Alcohol  leads  quickly  to  exhaustion,  and  causes  heaviness  and 
inattention  in  the  school. 

3.  Alcohol  causes  disobedience  to  parents. 

4.  Alcohol  develops  sleeplessness  and  early  nervousness. 

5.  Alcohol  increases  the  mortality  of  the  children. 

6.  Alcohol  weakens  the  resisting  power  of  the  body  and  thereby 
leads  to  the  development  of  all  kinds  of  diseases. 

7.  Alcohol  continually  awakens  renewed  thirst,  and  on  that  accoimt 
leads  easily  to  habits  of  drinking. 

What  should  the  wife  and  mother  know  of  alcohol? 

She  ought  to  know: 

That  one  ought  to  give  children  under  14  years  old  not  a drop  of 
wine,  beer  or  brandy. 

That  wine,  beer  and  brandy  are  not  materials  for  nourishment  but 
merely  intoxicants. 

That  spirituous  drinks  as  remedies  should  only  be  taken  as  necessi- 
ties on  a doctor’s  prescription  and  only  very  exceptionally. 

That  regular  taking  of  alcohol,  in  any  form  or  quantity,  damages 
the  blood,  and  thereby  lays  the  foimdation  of  many  diseases. 

That  regular  taking  of  alcohol  damages  the  working  power,  and  leads 
to  premature  sickness  of  those  who  take  it. 

That  regular  taking  of  alcohol  hinders,  prevents  and  makes  difficult 
the  progress  of  a man. 

That  regular  taking  of  alcohol  draws  many  a penny  out  of  the  pocket 
which  would  be  better  spent  on  the  family. 

That  regular  taking  of  alcohol  easily  leads  a man  to  become  a 
hanger-on  of  the  public  house  (saloon)  and  brings  the  family  life 
many  dangers,  and  makes  early  widows. 


[119] 


“ The  indictment  against  alcohol  has  long  since  been  drawn.  The 
sentence  has  been  pronounced  with  such  sharpness  and  so  loudly  in 
all  the  territories  of  civilization  and  savagery,  that  it  is  unnecessary 
to  reopen  discussion  concerning  the  results  of  experience  so  dearly 
purchased.  . . . The  destiny  of  that  people  which  is  unable 

to  react  against  the  moral  and  physical  degeneration,  accepted  in 
exchange  for  a degrading  pleasure,  is  sealed.”  Hon.  Georges  Cle- 
menceau,  former  premier  of  the  French  Republic.  Introduction  to 
L’Aleoohol,  by  M.  Louis  Jacquet,  1913. 

“Alcohol  is  the  great  purveyor  of  human  misery.  It  is  one  of  the 
supreme  factors  in  the  world's  suffering.”  Dr.  Lucien  Jacquet,  St. 
Antoine  Hospital,  Paris.  Brother  of  the  author  of  L’Aleoohol. 

The  city  government  of  Frankfort-on- the-Oder,  Germany,  has 
made  the  following  official  announcement: 

“No.  943. — Circulation  of  Placards  by  the  Alcohol  Interests. 

“Lately  placards  have  been  hung  out  in  many  drinkshops,  which, 
pretending  to  rest  on  scientific  bases,  represent  that  complete  absti- 
nence from  alcohol  works  more  injuriously  on  the  human  body  than 
the  extreme  use  of  alcohol.  These  placards  cany  a title  borrowed 
from  a placard  of  the  German  Union  against  the  Misuse  of  Spirituous 
Liquors,  ‘What  Every  One  Should  Know  About  Alcohol.’  I ask  that 
the  county  magistrates  and  local  police  officials  see  to  it  that  these 
placards,  calculated  as  they  are  to  stimulate  excess,  disappear.  The 
attention  of  the  drinksellers  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  hanging  out 
of  placards  of  this  sort  can  be  used  as  evidence  in  action  for  the 
withdrawal  of  licenses.”  Dec.  13,  1912. 


[ 120] 


CHAPTER  VI 
APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


We  live  in  an  intensely  practical  age.  Everywhere 
the  test  is  “utility” — not  always  a low  and  physical 
utility,  but  often  a high  and  spiritual  utility.  Even 
Jesus,  our  Master  in  the  spiritual  life,  commended 
this  test:  “By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  ” We 
bring  everything  to  the  test  of  experience.  We  ask 
of  all  things:  How  does  it  work.!*  We  demand  of 
everybody:  What  can  you  do.!*  In  all  realms  we 
insist:  Give  us  something  that  can  be  applied. 

In  the  department  of  education,  we  everywhere 
read  of  applied  mathematics,  applied  chemistry,  apphed 
physics,  applied  psychology.  We  have  schools  of 
apphed  philanthropy.  We  train  the  young  by  doing 
things  and  also  to  do  things.  Knowledge  must  be 
applied.  The  triumph  of  science  is  found  in  the  apph- 
cation  of  knowledge  to  the  service  of  humanity.  The 
advance  of  civilization,  on  its  material  side,  depends 
upon  the  application  of  the  energies  of  the  universe, — 
blowing  wind,  running  water,  the  stored  sunlight  in 
coal  and  forest, — to  the  work  of  the  world:  harnessing 
the  old  divinities  to  do  our  chores. 

The  same  spirit  is  also  transforming 
Demand  religion.  The  present  Age  pleads  with 

Applied  Ihs  churches:  Give  the  world,  not  mere 

Christianity  echoes  of  ancient  prophecies,  but  living 
voices  of  instruction  and  inspiration;  not 
symbols  of  distant  sanctities,  but  services  to  men  now 

[121] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


The  New 
Psychology 


in  need;  not  vanishing  memories  of  old  time  heroes, 
but  Baming  messages  of  love  that  shall  make  the  sons 
of  God  heroic  today!  The  demand  sweeps  round  the 
world  with  ever-increasing  urgency:  Send  forth  mis- 
sionaries of  Apphed  Christianity,  who  can  make  men 
feel  the  presence  of  God,  realise  the  eternal  hfe  that 
now  is,  and  reorganize  human  society  upon  the  high 
plane  of  right  and  justice.  And  the  present  attempt 
to  apply  Christianity  to  human  hfe,  in  a more  ^^tal 
and  ethical  way  than  formerly,  is  producing  a new 
Christianity,  in  which  the  spirit  of  Christ  is  more  evi- 
dent. In  this  spiritual  expansion  of  piety,  the  churches 
must  make  a more  vigorous  application  of  the  Gospel 
to  the  Drink  Problem.  To  hve  and  establish  the 
Kingdom  of  God  the  Church  must  destroy  the  saloon. 

We  are,  in  these  days,  all  disciples  and 
debtors  of  the  “new  psychology.”  And 
we  are  trying  to  apply  it  to  every  depart- 
ment of  human  life.  The  wise  mother  studies  the 
psychology  of  her  growing  infant.  The  skillful  teacher 
must  be  a psychologist.  The  doctor  has  added  psy- 
chotherapy to  his  pills  and  powders.  We  are  all  reading 
about  the  psychology  of  mobs  and  revivals.  The  novel- 
ist sends  us  off  on  our  v^acation  with  a psychological 
romance.  The  pohticians,  with  their  ear  to  the  ground, 
watch  for  the  “psychological  moment.”  The  teach- 
ings of  psychology  find  their  way  into  shop  and  store. 
On  them  the  art  of  advertising  is  based,  and  by  them 
the  commercial  traveler  wins  his  way.  The  arid  wastes 
of  the  “dismal  science”  now  become  attractive  because 
political  economists  follow  the  psychological  method. 
This  new  science  has  invaded  the  sanctuary,  so  that 
the  young  preacher  must  be  an  adept  in  psychology’ 
and  Christian  nurture  finds  here  a new  field  and 
friend. 


[ 122] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


One  of  the  principles  to  be  forced  to  the 
The  Power  front  by  psychology  is  the  power  of  sug- 

Suggestion  gestion.  Its  medicinal,  didactic,  esthetic, 

civic,  and  ethical  influence  is  now  seen  to 
be  very  great.  The  doctor,  by  the  simple  suggestion 
of  health,  can  calm  the  leaping  pulse,  ease  the  throbbing 
heart,  and  even  stimulate  the  appetite  to  a new  relish 
for  food.  The  effective  pedagogue  does  not  so  much 
impart  knowledge  as  suggest  methods  of  study  and 
research.  We  begin  to  realize  that  the  supreme  charm 
of  all  the  arts  lies  in  the  suggestions  of  form,  color,  and 
rhythm.  The  instructor  in  morals  points  out  how 
much  depends  upon  the  suggestions  of  environment; 
wholesome  surroundings  help  to  develop  noble  char- 
acters. The  great  statesman  knows  that  the  glowing 
expectations  of  patriotism  as  suggested  by  heroic 
monuments,  impressive  pageants,  inspiring  songs,  and 
fiery  eloquence  are  invaluable  factors  in  the  making  of 
the  commonwealth.  We  are  all  constantly  students 
and  practitioners  in  “the  school  of  suggestion.”  The 
divinest  felicities  and  excellencies  of  our  common  human 
life  come  through  this  wide  gateway  of  suggestion. 

Just  because  all  this  is  true,  we  are  able 
Advertise  light  of  this  principle,  how  very 

ments  harmful  liquor  advertisements  are.  They 

produce  innumerable  evils,  but  chiefly  in  two 
ways:  (1)  By  stimulating  a low  and  vicious  appetite;  (2) 
by  teaching  pernicious  errors.  Consider  the  first  point. 
The  billboard  picture  and  the  newspaper  legend  in 
attractive  type,  both  seductively  suggestive,  constantly 
keep  the  use  and  supposed  benefit  of  liquor  before 
millions  of  people.  Their  omnipresent  “suggestions” 
stimulate  appetite,  and  lead  directly  to  its  harmful 
gratification.  If  this  were  not  true,  the  liquor  men 
would  not  annually  spend  millions  of  dollars  in  this 
[ 123] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Poster 

Suggestion 


manner.  Many  a man  would  never  think  of  drinking 
beer  or  whisky  did  not  the  advertisement  awaken  the 
desire  in  his  mind.  Just  as  obscene  pictures  and 
amorous  poetry  create  animal  passions  in  the  young,  so 
these  liquor  advertisements  multiply  and  intensify  the 
popular  thirst  for  liquors.  A careful  examination  would 
show  that  the  determining  impulse  toward  the  saloon 
comes,  in  thousands  of  cases,  from  the  suggestion  of 
liquor  advertisements.  The  educative  influence  for 
evil  with  the  young,  along  this  line,  is  incalculable;  and 
it  ought  to  receive  our  serious  attention. 

How  often,  in  turning  the  advertising 
pages  of  the  magazine,  do  we  find 
ourselves  saying,  as  the  eye  rests  upon  some 
attractively  presented  matter:  We  never  thought  of 
it  before,  but  this  is  something  that  we  must  have. 
And  so  if  one  inherits  a morbid  desire  for  liquor,  how 
much  more  powerful  the  suggestion  to  drink,  arising 
from  wine  or  beer  advertisements.  The  pictures,  in 
public  places  and  on  billboards,  of  jolly  old  men  drink- 
ing whiskjq  of  elegantly  dressed  young  men  and  women 
drinking  champagne,  and  all  such  suggestive  adver- 
tisements which  everwhere  stare  at  us — these  educate 
our  children  in  evil.  If  the  obscene  picture  ought  to 
be  prohibited,  surely  these  advertisements  that  turn 
men,  through  Drink,  into  the  ways  of  death,  ought 
also  to  be  prohibited. 

The  swift  desecration  of  every  landscape 
in  our  coimtry  by  liquor  advertisements 
during  the  last  few  years  is  a serious  menace 
to  all  the  precious  interests  of  ci\'ilization.  The  evil 
is  appalling,  and  it  is  on  the  increase.  It  is  the  “new 
profanity”  which  is  far  more  offensive  and  more  harm- 
ful than  the  vulgar  habit  of  swearing. 

The  human  side  of  the  command  in  the  Decalogue — 

[ 124] 


Billboard 

Desecration 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


The  New 
Profanity 


“Thou  shall  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in 
vain” — is  this:  “Thou  shall  not  profane  the  works 
of  God,  much  less  the  sons  of  God.”  To  blight  the 
life  of  a child  of  God  by  encouraging  intemperance  is 
worse  than  to  take  the  name  of  God  in  vain,  because 
deeds  go  deeper  than  words;  because  drunkenness 
dishonors  God  more  than  idle  speech.  To  plaster 
fields  and  buildings  with  lying  praises  of  intoxicants; 
to  bombard  the  sensitive  minds  of  women  and  children 
with  false  and  odious  glorifications  of  liquors  that 
turn  men  into  brutes;  and  to  put  to  foul  uses  the  pic- 
tures of  beautiful  women:  What  greater  profanity  can 
curse  the  world? 

This  profanation  has  recently  made 
alarming  strides.  If  we  open  a copy  of 
many  of  our  leading  newspapers,  the  won- 
derful merits  of  some  new  brand  of  whisky,  beer,  or  wine 
are  paraded  before  us  in  letters  six  inches  long.  If  we 
look  upward  to  the  blue  sky,  the  great  billboards  on 
the  housetops,  proclaiming  the  virtues  of  some  liquor, 
shut  out  the  glories  of  the  horizon.  If  we  turn  the 
pages  of  many  a magazine,  we  see  between  notices  of 
books  and  schools,  the  picture  of  a brewery  or  a dis- 
tillery, If  we  lift  our  eyes  to  heaven  we  often  behold 
the  church  steeple  framed  in  liquor  signs.  If  we  enter 
a trolley  car,  there  too  the  lurid  appeals  to  man’s 
lowest  appetite  are  blazoned  forth.  If  we  take  the 
wings  of  the  morning  and  go  to  the  quiet  countryside, 
even  there  on  cliff  or  stable  the  “traflBc”  has  put  its 
defacing  sign-manual  of  disease  and  death!  What  is 
all  this  but  the  worst  form  of  profanity? 

Who  has  not  felt  bruised  and  wounded 
by  the  pictorial  lies  in  commendation  of 
intoxicating  drinks  that  confront  us  where- 
ever  we  turn?  A picture  representing  whisky  as  a 

[125] 


Pictnied 

Lies 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


life-preserver,  when  in  fact  it  is  the  greatest  life-de- 
stroyer. A picture  of  some  bottled  drink  represented  as 
the  giver  of  joy,  when  in  fact  it  produces  immeasurable 
sorrows;  and  on  the  whole,  a hundred  heartaches  to  a 
single  transient  pleasure.  A picture  of  an  athlete  with 
implication  that  strength  comes  from  use  of  liquors, 
when  in  fact  the  winners  in  the  stadium  are  restricted 
to  total  abstinence.  A picture  of  a sturdy  workman 
made  as  attractive  as  possible  to  commend  the  product 
of  some  particular  brewery,  when  in  fact  our  great 
captains  of  industry  put  their  workmen  under  bonds 
not  to  drink.  A picture  of  a young  man  at  his  study 
table  with  bottles  among  his  books  to  tempt  students 
into  the  use  of  liquors,  when  in  fact  the  teacher  can 
always  mark  the  beginning  of  dissipation  by  the  poorer 
recitation.  A picture  of  the  happy  home  with  a well 
filled  side-board  from  which  the  beautiful  daughter  is 
carrying  the  full  glasses  to  all  its  members,  when  in 
fact  thousands  of  homes  in  our  land  are  in  tears  from 
the  Drink  Habit!  What  is  all  this  deadly  mis-repre- 
sentation  of  life,  devised  simply  to  increase  “trade,” 
but  the  very  worst  form  of  profanity ! 

Has  anyone  a right  to  make  the  beautiful 
theTiqTof  landscape  swear  at  us  by  strewing  it  with 
Poster  glaring  and  offensive  signs  of  whiskj'  and 

beer?  Has  anyone  a right  to  cover  the 
fields  with  “liquor-lies”  that  pervert  and  corrupt  the 
minds  of  innocent  children?  Has  anyone  a right  to 
parade  before  a Christian  community  by  seductive  but 
deceptive  pictures  the  wares  of  a “trade”  that  does 
little  more  than  fill  jails,  asylums,  poorhouses,  and 
pauper-graves?  WTiat  a prostitution  of  art;  what  a 
degradation  of  life!  What  inexcusable  profanation — 
to  use  the  divine  figure  of  some  beautful  woman  to  com- 
mend to  the  world  a brand  of  whisky,  the  drinking  of 

[126] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


which  by  husband,  son  or  father,  burdens  women  with 
more  miseries  than  spring  from  all  other  evils  in  life! 
Is  there  even  a single  drunkard  who  would  like  to  have 
the  picture  of  his  mother,  wife  or  daughter  so  used? 
What  an  outrage  upon  the  holiest  being  on  earth! 

All  our  teachers  are  emphasizing  the  importance 
and  the  influence  of  environment  upon  human  life  in 
general,  but  especially  upon  child-life.  Therefore, 
how  unwise  and  unfortunate  to  permit  a nefarious 
“trade”  to  corrupt  and  pervert  our  environment  by 
making  it  impossible  for  our  children  to  take  a walk  or 
a ride,  to  open  magazine  or  newspaper,  to  look  at 
buildings  or  hillsides  without  coming  face  to  face  with 
this  “New  Profanity!” 

Bad  as  ordinary  “curse- words”  are,  what 
they  in  comparison  with  the  profanities 
that  the  liquor  traffic  spreads  round  our 
homes,  so  that  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the 
sun  our  families  are  never  free  from  these  pictorial  lies 
in  praise  of  some  form  of  malt  or  spirituous  drinks! 

Vulgar  as  common  swearing  is,  how  small  an  evil  it 
is,  in  comparison  with  the  vulgarizing  influence  of  an 
environment  overspread  and  polluted  with  advertise- 
ments designed  to  increase  the  use  of  that  which  cor- 
rupts morals  and  destroys  human  life! 

Repulsive  as  coarse  oaths  are,  what  are  they,  in 
comparison  with  the  desecration  of  womanhood  by 
brewers  and  distillers  who  use  the  human  form  divine 
to  popularize  a liquor,  the  drinking  of  which  leads  men 
to  poverty  and  disease,  overwhelms  men  in  shame  and 
misery,  and  prompts  men  to  rob  and  to  murder! 

Horrible  as  is  the  sin  of  blasphemy,  the 
soul  uplifted  in  anger  against  God,  how 
small  this  sin,  in  comparison  with  the  em- 
blazonry of  evil  which  everywhere  affronts 

[ 127] 


An  Appeal 
to  the 
Christian 
Conscience 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  eye  of  the  Christian  today : every  charm  of 
color,  figure,  and  phrase  adroitly  used  to  tempt 
people  to  a larger  use  of  liquors,  carrying  in  this  way 
a swifter  ruin  to  the  lives  of  the  Sons  of  God! 
The  greater  blasphemy  surely  lies,  not  in  angrj^  words 
that  dishonor  God,  but  in  the  selfish  traffic  that  cor- 
rupts and  destroys  his  child! 

Must  we  forever  allow  the  “traffic”  that  ruins 
thousands  of  homes  every  year  to  continue  to  profane 
the  queen  of  the  home  by  using  her  divine  figure  to 
advertise  the  merits  of  its  wares? 

Must  we  forever  be  offended  and  lacerated  m spirit 
by  a landscape  desecrated  by  lying  billboards  that 
appeal  to  man’s  lowest  instincts? 

Must  we  forever  submit  to  the  humiliation  of  having 
our  children  constantly  confronted  with  the  alluring 
but  false  statements  that  this  poisonous  “stuff”  is  the 
staff  of  life? 

Must  we  forever  blush  as  we  walk  the  streets,  seeing, 
as  we  are  now  compelled  to  see,  the  pictorial  profanities 
by  a business  that  fattens  on  the  miseiies  of  mankind? 

Some  day  the  conscience  now  sleeping  will  awake  and 
people  will  not  allow  their  property  to  be  so  profaned. 
Some  day  the  lovers  of  children  will  rise  up  in  righteous 
wrath  and  insist  that  this  iniquity  shall  cease.  Some 
day  public  opinion  will  compel  our  lawmakers  to  enact 
and  our  officials  to  enforce  statutes  prohibiting  this 
form  of  profanity.  Already  the  State  of  Maine  has  a 
law  (Revised  Statutes,  Chap.  29,  Sec.  45),  which  im- 
poses a fine  of  $20.00  upon  those  who  insert  liquor 
advertisements  in  any  newspaper. 

The  The  second  point  in  this:  These  liquor 

Education  ad\  ertisements  not  only  suggest  e\’il,  but 
they  teach  innumerable  and  abominable 
errors.  The  child  reads  in  the  family 

[128] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


newspaper  the  advertisement  which  states  that 
“beer  is  liquid  bread.”  The  statement  becomes  a 
part  of  the  child’s  mental  equipment.  Now,  this 
is  not  only  an  error,  but  a very  pernicious  error. 
Science  has  demonstrated  that  beer  is  no  more  “liquid 
bread”  than  sawdust  is  good  beefsteak.  Nay,  more: 
while  the  sawdust  is  harmless,  the  beer  contains  a 
poison  (alcohol)  which  injures  every  faculty  and  funC' 
tion  of  a human  being.  We  do  not  allow  any  one  to 
advertise  that  dirty  milk  is  wholesome.  But  this  is 
an  innocent  statement  beside  the  pictorial  claims  on 
billboards  that  liquors  are  needed  by  laborers  to  make 
muscle,  and  by  students  to  make  brain.  All  horrible 
lies,  and  shown  to  be  lies  in  every  scientific  laboratory 
in  the  world.  And  yet,  we  meekly  allow  these  false 
statements  to  educate  youths  and  adults  at  every 
corner!  It  is  as  wrong  for  the  state  to  permit  these 
liquor  advertisements  as  it  would  be  to  permit  attract- 
ive commendations  of  arsenic  as  harmless  and  of 
opium  as  beneficial.  We  are  still  blind  to  the  evil 
suggestions  of  the  former,  because  dominated  by  the 
ancient  superstition  that  alcohol  is  a life-giver;  whereas 
it  is  a life-destroyer. 

When  liquor  men  complain,  “Have  we 
^ right  to  advertise  our  goods  like  any 
Falsehood  Other  business  man.?” — we  reply  with 
reason  and  justice:  “No!  You  have 
not;  because  yours  is  a trade  which,  for  generations, 
has  been  treated  as  in  a class  by  itseK.  ” The  very 
fact  that  the  state  has  for  years  made  special  and 
drastic  laws  to  regulate  or  suppress  the  sale  of  liquors, 
shows  that  this  business  has  long  been  set  apart  from 
legitimate  trade.  All  liquor  statutes  imply  the  public 
conviction  that  such  sales  are  more  or  less  dangerous 
to  the  community.  Otherwise  we  would  not  have 
[ 129  ] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


licenses,  restricted  hours,  special  police  supervision, 
and  regulations  as  to  number  and  locality.  No  other 
business  is  so  treated,  because  no  other  is  so  fraught 
with  evil  to  mankind.  The  liquor  shop  is  the  only 
one  that  directly  and  constantly  produces  criminals, 
lunatics,  paupers,  idiots,  ruined  homes,  corrupt  politics. 
Sabbath  desecration,  contempt  of  law,  disorderly  and 
dangerous  streets,  iimumerable  accidents,  and  a high 
death  rate.  No  other  business  has  such  an  appaUing 
record. 

And  being  such  a menace  to  human  welfare,  this 
business  has  no  right  to  advertise  its  wares,  whose  use 
is  harmful  to  individual  and  state,  and  nothing  but 
harmful.  The  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England  and  his 
associates  teU  us  that  Drink  causes  nine-tenths  of  the 
crime  of  the  land.  And  yet  we  allow  brewer  and 
distiller  to  do  all  that  they  can  to  increase  the  use  of 
liquor  by  skillful  advertisements.  \Miat  could  be 
more  absurd Investigators  tell  us  that  Drink  is 
responsible  for  a large  majority  of  those  who  crowd 
poorhouses.  And  yet  we  allow  liquor  men  to  do  all 
that  they  can  by  suggestive  advertisements  to  induce 
men  to  drink  what  produces  paupers.  \Miat  could  be 
more  irrational  .f* 

Doctors  tell  us  that  the  use  of  alcohol  in  large  or 
small  quantities  makes  men  more  susceptible  to  disease; 
those  who  drink  it  have  less  chance  of  recovery  when 
sick;  while  it  actually  creates  many  forms  of  disease. 
And  yet  we  allow  the  beer  and  whisky  men  to  push,  by 
suggestive  advertisements,  the  consumption  of  the 
very  stuff  that  fills  the  land  with  lunacy,  cancer,  pneu- 
monia, and  tuberculosis!  What  could  be  more  unwise? 
Psychologists  tell  us  that  so-called  “moderate  drinking” 
weakens  the  mental  faculties  and  lessens  industrial 
[130] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


capacity;  so  that  a drinking  man  cannot  think  as 
accurately,  work  as  fast,  or  endure  as  much  hardship. 
And  yet  we  allow  the  saloonkeeper  to  cover  billboard 
and  newspaper  with  alluring  advertisements  to  increase 
the  use  of  that  which  causes  all  this  mischief!  What 
could  be  more  unreasonable? 

What  foolishness ! Making  restrictive 
laws  to  lessen  the  evils  of  intemperance, 
but  letting  the  evil  suggestions,  which 
aggravate  the  curse,  go  untouched!  Creating  innu- 
merable charities  to  repair  the  ravages  of  beer  and 
whisky,  but  letting  this  suggestive  billboard  profanity 
feed  the  roots  from  which  destitution  and  degradation 
spring ! Organize  a crusade  against  the  “ white  plague,  ’ ’ 
but  let  these  encouragements  and  temptations  to  drink, 
which  causes  so  much  disease  and  death,  deface  road- 
side, street-car,  and  newspaper!  Get  the  children  to 
sign  the  pledge  in  the  Sunday-school,  but  let  the  liquor 
men  plaster  every  landscape  with  pictorial  lies  about 
beer  and  whisky  that  will  make  ten  drunkards  where 
the  church  saves  one!  Maintain  courts  and  policemen 
at  great  expense,  but  let  this  suggestive  education 
toward  crime  through  liquor  advertisements  inciting 
to  drink  that  produces  a large  majority  of  our  criminals 
— let  this  abomination  go  unchecked!  Surely,  we  are 
today  merely  toying  with  the  fringes  of  the  Drink 
Curse,  while  we  permit  the  most  prolific  source  of  these 
evils  to  flourish  everywhere. 

The  open  liquor  shops  on  almost  every  corner  are 
bad  enough.  But  to  have  the  Liquor  Interests  behind 
them  everywhere  appealing  by  suggestive  advertise- 
ments (which  mislead  the  young  and  stimulate  evil 
cravings),  to  the  whole  population,  and  in  this  very 
subtle  and  effective  manner  increasing  the  evils  which 
[131] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


center  in  the  saloon, — this  is  an  intolerable  crime 
against  civilization!  The  license,  which  the  state 
hesitatingly  grants  to  sell  liquor,  does  not  carry  with 
it  the  right  to  multiply  the  evU  by  all  the  means  known 
to  skillful,  seductive,  and  untruthful  advertisements. 
Laws  should  be  passed  prohibiting  this  evil.  But 
public  sentiment  needs  to  be  aroused  and  brought  to 
bear  aginst  papers,  magazines,  land  owners,  and  car 
companies  which  now  permit  such  advertisements. 
Even  a postal  card  shower  of  protests  centered  upon 
oflFenders  in  this  hne  would  do  much  good.  It  is  easy 
to  see  that  this  great  evil  might  at  once  be  lessened  or 
stopped,  if  our  leading  business  men  who,  as  a rule, 
favor  temperance  both  in  principle  and  in  practice, 
would  combine  and  take  a decided  stand,  by  withhold- 
ing their  patronage  from  newspapers  that  carry  such 
liquor  advertisements. 

The  time  will  certainly  come — may  it  soon  come — 
when  this  prolific  source  of  evils  now  permitted  by  the 
state  will  be  looked  upon  with  the  abhorrence  which 
we  now  visit  upon  piracy,  duelling  and  slavery.  As 
people  come  to  understand  that  science  demonstrates 
that  alcohol  as  a common  drink  is  a poison  doing  infinite 
harm  to  mankind,  and  as  the  new  psychology  makes 
clear  to  the  community  the  power  of  suggestion  in 
general  and  the  vast  influence  of  the  evil  suggestions 
due  to  liquor  advertisements,  then  the  lover  of  humanity 
will  see  to  it  that  this  menace  to  happiness  and  progress 
shall  come  to  an  end.  The  Christian  people  of  America 
must  arise  and  put  a stop  to  this  billboard  profanity 
which  is  blighting  and  ruining  thousands  upon  thou- 
sands of  human  lives. 

Wise  leaders  begin  to  see  in  these  principles  of  sug- 
gestion (central  in  Apphed  Psychology,  and  in  the 
[132] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


past  largely  used  by  the  liquor  trade),  fruitful  methods 
for  the  education  of  the  public  in  sobriety.  As  John 
Wesley  took  the  “devil’s  music”  and  converted  it  to 
the  service  of  God,  so  we  must  apply  these  principles 
to  the  training  of  men  in  temperance.  The  billboard 
must  be  redeemed  and  made  to  teach  the  divine  lessons 
of  life. 

A consideration  of  these  facts,  has  led, 
Re^deemmg  home  and  abroad,  to  what  is  known  as 
Billboards  “The  Poster  Campaign”:  very  effective 
in  itself  and  made  necessary  because  so 
many  newspapers  refuse  to  print  temperance  articles, 
having  put  themselves  in  bonds  to  brewer  and  distiller 
by  accepting  liquor  advertisements.  These  posters, 
varying  in  size  and  statement,  are  used  in  many  differ- 
ent ways.  Some  are  small  with  a brief  statement,  like 
the  following;  which  are  both  sold  and  given  away  to 
the  general  public  by  the  Poster  Committee,  composed 
of  prominent  men  and  women — half  of  them  eminent 
doctors— recently  appointed  by  the  Associated  Charities 
of  Boston: 

$1.00  IN  $2.00  OUT 

FOB  EVERY  $1.00 

that  the  State  received  in  1912  from  Liquor  License,  it  paid  out  over 
$2.00  in  caring  for  the  Criminals,  Paupers  and  Insane  brought  to  our 
Institutions  through  Drink. 

When  you  hear  about  revenue  from  liquor, — think  this  over. 

The  following  is  another  small  poster: 

“Recent  researches  . . . tend  strongly  to  show  that  even 

the  moderate  drinking  of  alcohol  is  inexpedient.  No  longer  are 

[133] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


men  who  are  exposed  to  cold,  heat,  fatigue  or  hardships  of  any  sort 
prepared  or  braced  by  any  form  of  alcohol.”  Dr.  Charles  W.  Eliot, 
President  Emeritus,  Harvard  University. 

These  and  others  are  for  use  by  merchants,  to  be 
put  on  packages,  and  also  by  individuals  to  be  put  on 
letters,  like  the  Red  Cross  stamps.  Here  is  a most 
effective  means  of  popular  education  in  temperance, 
which  will  go  where  books  and  magazines  will  not 
reach;  which  will  penetrate  deeper  than  statutes  and 
produce  the  public  sentiment  without  which  statutes 
are  powerless,  and  which,  also,  is  especially  needed  in 
these  times,  when  the  press  of  the  country  is  so  indiffer- 
ent to  the  Drink  Curse.  This  Poster  Campaign  ought 
to  be  given  wide  and  vigorous  support  by  all  who  are 
interested  in  the  temperance  movement.  The  work 
at  present  (1913)  is  under  the  eflScient  direction  of 
Mrs.  Elizabeth  Tilton,  who  will  be  glad  to  correspond 
with  all  interested  parties:  11  Mason  St.,  Cambridge, 
Mass. 

Large  posters  for  bulletin  boards,  billboards,  sides  of 
buildings,  and  trunks  of  trees,  are  also  printed  (some  on 
cloth  to  withstand  the  rain),  to  be  used  by  towns, 
manufacturers,  and  individuals.  The  people  of  Cam- 
bridge, Mass,  (the  municipal  authorities  co-operating) 
are  at  present  engaged  in  such  a “poster  campaign.” 
The  movement  is  rapidly  spreading.  Mrs.  Tilton 
writes:  “The  poster  campaign  is  wonderful.  Town 
after  town  is  coming  in  for  a year’s  campaign  of  alcohol 
education.”  One  of  these  posters,  already  widely 
used,  is  as  follows: 


[134] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


Alcohol: 

The  Public  Thinks:  It  is  only  heavy  drinking  that 
harms. 

Experiments  Show:  That  even  Moderate  Drinking 
hurts  Health,  lessens  Efficiency. 

The  Public  Thinks:  Alcohol  braces  us  for  hard  work  and 
against  fatigue. 

Experiments  Show:  That  Alcohol  in  no  way  increases 
muscular  strength  or  endurance. 

Alcohol  lowers  vitality;  Alcohol  opens  the  door  to  diseases: 

Resolved,  at  the  International  Congress  on  Tuber- 
culosis, 1905,  to  combine  the  fight  against  alcohol  with 
the  struggle  against  tuberculosis.  At  the  Massachu- 
setts General  Hospital,  Boston,  the  use  of  alcohol  as 
a medicine  declined  77  per  cent,  in  eight  years. 

Most  Modern  Hospitals  show  the  same  tendency. 
Alcohol  is  responsible  for  much  of  our  insanity,  much 
of  our  poverty,  much  of  our  crime.  Our  prison  com- 
missioners reported  that  95  % of  those  who  went  to 
prison  in  1911  had  intemperate  habits. 

Yet  the  Public  Says:  We  need  the  Revenue  from  Liquor. 
The  Public  Should  Know:  How  small  is  the 
revenue  compared  with  the  cost  of  carrying  the 
Wreckage. 

Your  money  supports  the  wreckage. 

Your  will  allows  it. 

Your  indifference  endangers  the  nation. 
Commercialized  Vice  is  promoted  through  Alcohol. 

Citizens  Think! 

Arrayed  against  Alcohol  are  Economy,  Science,  Effi- 
ciency, Health,  Morality. — ^The  very  Assets  of 
a Nation:  the  very  Soul  of  a People. 

Think! 

[135] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


The  following  is  a Poster  (24  by  36  inches)  used  by 
the  city  of  Glasgow,  Scotland: 

Abuse  of  Alcohol  and  its  Results: 

The  Committee  on  Health  urge  the  citizens  to  consider  the  follow- 
ing statements  from  the  Report,  recently  submitted  to  Parliament  by 
the  Committee 

On  Physical  Deterioration: 

Effect  on  Adults: 

1.  The  abuse  of  Alcoholic  Stimulants  is  a most  potent  and  deadly 

agent  in  producing  physical  deterioration. 

2.  Alcohol  is  not  a food. 

3.  It  is  not  a source  of  muscular  vigor  or  dexterity,  but  the  reverse. 

4.  It  may  produce  temporary  exhilaration,  but  depression  soon  fol- 

lows. 

5.  Its  continued  use  impairs  the  productive  power  of  the  skilled  ar- 

tisan. 

6.  Its  continued  use,  whether  in  the  form  of  beer,  wine,  or  spirits, 

even  though  never  to  the  extent  of  producing  drunkenness  re- 
sults in  chronic  poisoning. 

7.  It  weakens  the  natural  forces  which  resist  disease. 

8.  It  increases  the  risk  of  consumption. 

9.  It  increases  liability  to  disease,  adds  to  its  severity,  and  retards 

recovery. 

10.  It  perverts  the  moral  nature,  affects  the  judgment,  and  impairs 

the  memory. 

11.  It  deadens  sensibility  to  miserable  surroundings  and  destro3's  all 

desire  for  improvement. 

12.  It  increases  the  proportion  of  men  and  women  who  are  being  con- 

fined in  Asylums. 

13.  It  shortens  life:  The  death-rate  of  Abstainers  is  little  more  than 

half  that  of  the  whole  male  population  living  between  the  ages 
of  24  and  65. 

Effect  of  Parental  Intemperance  on  Children: 

14.  Intemperance  in  Parents  brings  suffering  on  their  children. 

15.  It  produces  physical  and  sometimes  mental  weakness  in  them. 

16.  If  they  escape  death  in  infancy,  permanent  disablement  maj’  still 

result  from  paralj’sis,  epilepsj’,  or  idiocy. 

17.  The  Death  Rate  among  infants  of  inebriate  mothers  is  2^  times 

greater  than  among  the  children  of  sober  mothers. 

18.  The  Report  states  that  Drinking  Habits  are  increasing  among 

women  of  the  Working  Classes ! 

A.  K.  Chalmehs,  M.D., 
Medical  Officer  of  Health,  Glasgow. 

[136] 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


Poster 
Campaign 
in  Europe 


This  “poster  campaign”  began  in  Europe 
about  ten  years  ago,  and  much  has  been 
done  along  this  line  in  Germany,  France, 
and  Great  Britain.  Many  towns  and 
cities  have  taken  the  matter  up,  in  some  cases  as  a 
municipal  policy,  but  more  often  the  work  is  done  by 
manufacturers  or  temperance  societies.  In  England, 
chiefly  by  the  Church  of  England  Temperance  Society 
and  by  the  National  British  Women’s  Temperance 
Association,  which  publish  many  posters  similar 
to  those  given  above,  and  also  some  smaller  in 
size.  In  France,  municipalities  have  engaged  in 
this  work,  which  has  been  violently  opposed  by  the 
Liquor  Interests,  which  induced  the  city  of  Paris  (in 
1903)  to  take  down  a striking  bulletin,  descriptive  of 
the  evil  effects  of  drinking,  from  all  public  places, 
except  hospitals!  In  Germany,  the  North  German 
Iron  and  Steel  Trade  Association  (5,000  firms  and 
120,000  workmen)  reported  in  1906,  that  among  the 
three  preventive  measures  used  to  combat  the  Drink 
Menace  were  “posters  regarding  the  abuse  of  alcohol.” 

This  “temperance  poster”  campaign, 
which  is  new  in  America,  is  bound  to  sweep 
rapidly  over  the  country.  The  facts  about 
alcohol  are  numerous,  decisive,  appalling. 
They  must  be  put  before  the  people  effect- 
ively. The  schools  are  doing  much,  but  there  are 
millions  not  reached  by  the  schools.  The  churches  do 
something,  but  only  a small  part  of  what  they  ought  to 
do  and  could  do.  The  press  is  largely  indifferent.  Social 
workers,  in  general,  are  “liquor  blind.”  The  Liquor 
Interests  are  using  the  billboard  extensively  and  seduc- 
tively. As  has  been  said,  the  billboards  must  be 
redeemed.  On  them  must  be  carried  forward  a new 
education  of  the  public  respecting  the  truth  about 

[137] 


The  Poster 
Campaign  in 
the  United 
States 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Drink.  Here  is  important  work  for  every  society 
striving  for  human  betterment,  and  for  every  individual 
who  cares  for  the  welfare  of  the  race.  Every  one  can 
easily  participate  in  it  at  a very  small  expense.  Cities 
and  states  may  well  foster  the  campaign.  In  Alabama, 
in  1909,  the  Legislature  passed  a law,  directing  the 
state  superintendent  of  education  to  prepare,  and 
distribute  to  every  school  in  the  state,  placards  (to  be 
changed  from  time  to  time)  “printed  in  large  tjT)e, 
upon  which  shall  be  set  forth  in  attractive  style  sta- 
tistics, epigrams  and  mottoes  showing  the  e^dls  of 
intemperance.”  A wise  and  significant  measure. 
The  Fifty  Posters,  in  two  colors,  prepared  and  printed 
by  the  Scientific  Temperance  Federation  (to  which 
reference  is  made  in  the  Note  of  Acknowledgment  at 
the  beginning  of  this  book)  are  most  admirable  helps 
for  such  a campaign:  the  most  attractive  and  compre- 
hensive contributions  so  far  made  to  this  work. 

Another  form  of  “Applied  Psychologj'” 
in  behalf  of  temperance  is  the  “public 
exhibit,”  where,  by  charts  and  diagrams, 
and  other  means,  the  facts  about  alcohol  “ are  made 
to  talk  loudly  and  persuasively  to  the  plain  people.” 
This  has  recently  been  done  on  a large  scale  at  two 
great  Health  Exhibitions,  that  at  Dresden,  Germany, 
two  years  ago  and  that  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  last 
year  (1912). 

At  the  Dresden  Exhibit,  a section  was  set  apart  for 
an  anti-alcohol  exhibit  where  statistics  showing  the 
inevitable  degeneracy  consequent  on  the  use  of  alcohol 
were  most  forcibly  presented.  There  is  no  getting 
away  from  the  truths  of  those  terrible  statistics.  There 
were  also  wax  models  of  portions  of  the  human  frame 
in  their  normal  condition  and  also  when  saturated  with 
Drink.  There  was  a list  of  the  diseases  induced  by 
[138] 


The  Public 
Exhibit 


APPLIED  PSYCHOLOGY 


Drink,  with  wax  models  of  persons  suffering  from  them. 
The  walls  were  covered  by  the  pictures  of  men  and 
women  suffering  from  delirium  tremens.  Tables  show- 
ing the  effect  of  Drink  on  offspring,  and  its  power  in 
producing  degenerates,  idiots,  and  criminals  were  also 
conspicuous.  The  section  as  a whole  constituted  an 
unprecedented  scientific  indictment  of  alcohol. 

In  Germany,  vacant  store  windows  are 
borrowed  by  local  committees  and  provided 

Window  . - . P , ,1 

Exhibit  With  a great  variety  ot  charts,  tables, 
mottoes,  quotations,  brochures,  models, 
posters,  alcoholized  organs  and  the  like.  The  passing 
public  gathers  about  such  a display  as  flies  about  sugar, 
and  just  the  element  in  the  community  which  could 
never  be  dragged  into  a temperance  meeting  gets  the 
instruction  it  most  needs.  A Good  Templar  lodge  in 
Frankfort  recently  set  up  an  exhibition  of  this  type 
in  two  great  corner  windows  on  the  Braubachstrasse. 
At  all  hours  of  the  day  a veritable  swarm  of  people 
could  be  observed  studying  with  greater  or  less  thor- 
oughness the  charts  and  tables.  In  Switzerland,  there 
are  traveling  anti-alcohol  exhibits  which  are  set  up, 
flrst  in  one  town  and  then  in  another.  One  in  Geneva 
was  recently  attended  by  17,000  people  in  a fortnight. 

Something  of  the  same  sort  has  been 
sf3,rted  here  in  America.  At  the  recent 
Exhibit  Christian  Endeavor  Convention  in  Brockton, 

Mass.,  the  Public  Market  Company  gave 
its  flne  corner  show  window  to  the  temperance  com- 
mittee, in  which  Robert  H.  Magwood  exhibited  ninety- 
one  dollars’  worth  of  family  provisions,  illustrating  a 
much  better  outlay  of  this  sum,  than  the  equivalent, 
which  has  been  found  to  be  the  annual  drink  cost  of 
the  average  American  family.  This,  with  a variety  of 
models,  diagrams  and  pictures,  showing  the  evils,  the 

[ 139] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


ill-health  and  poverty  connected  with  Drink,  con- 
stantly interested  groups  of  passers,  who  studied  the 
facts. 

In  these  and  other  ways,  the  principles  of  “Apphed 
Psychology”  must  be  vigorously  and  extensively  used 
to  overthrow  the  Drink  Superstition. 


[140] 


“ Beer  is  a drug  which  deadens  the  will-power  and  excites  the  animal 
instincts  of  the  young;  its  relation  therefore  to  immorality  is  most 
momentous.  In  plain  English,  a master  who  allows  his  pupils  to 
drink  beer  at  bed-time,  and  a parent  who  sanctions  it,  impbcitly 
says  to  them;  I give  you  this  beer  at  bed-time,  well  knowing  that  it 
wUl  blunt  your  intellect,  deaden  your  conscience,  and  diminish  your 
will-power,  and  that  at  the  same  time  it  will  excite  your  animal  in- 
stincts.” The  Use  of  Alcohol  in  Youth.  Dr.  Clement  Dukes.  Phy- 
sician to  Rugby  School,  England. 

“To  the  man  who  is  actively  engaged  in  responsible  work,  who 
must  have  at  his  command  the  best  that  is  in  him,  at  its  best,  to  him 
I would,  with  all  the  emphasis  that  I possess,  ad\’ise  and  urge,  leave 
drink  alone, — absolutely.  He  who  drinks  is  deliberately  disqualifying 
himself  for  advancement.  I do  not  drink.”  President  William  H. 
Taft. 

“Each  decade  will  make  clearer  the  gains  of  abstinence  and  will 
bring  to  its  support  a larger  number  of  thoughtful  people.  The  pres- 
sure of  economic  conditions  will  add  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
drinker  and  force  to  the  wall  with  increasing  rapidity  those  seeking  to 
relieve  their  misery  by  the  use  of  drugs  and  strong  drinks.  New 
and  better  forms  of  social  control  are  constantly  being  devised, 
and  those  now  in  use  are  gaining  in  strength  and  influence. 

When  we  all  become  Americans  we  wili  all  be  abstainers.”  Prof. 
Simon  N.  Patten,  University  of  Pennsj’lvania.  1908. 

“No  obser\^ant  person  can  travel  through  the  East  for  a year  with- 
out being  shocked  by  the  manifest  tendency  of  the  white  race  tem- 
porarily resident  there  to  destroy  itself  through  alcoholism.  Alcohol 
is  destructive  in  the  highest  degree  to  the  white  race  in  the  tropics, 
and  all  through  the  tropics  the  white  race  exhibits  a terrible  lack  of 
self-control  with  regard  to  the  use  of  alcoholic  drinks.  It  is  morti- 
fying to  the  last  degree  for  an  American  to  see  American  soldiers  and 
sailors  staggering  about  the  streets  of  the  Chinese  cities  where  we  now 
have  troops  and  never  to  see  a Japanese  soldier  in  such  condition, 
although  the  Japanese  have  five  times  as  many  troops  there  as  we 
have.  I mention  but  a single  fact,  but  the  lesson  of  the  East  is  that 
the  alcoholism  of  the  white  race  must  be  overcome,  or  that  -vdce  with 
the  licentiousness  it  promotes,  will  overcome  the  race.”  Charles 
W.  Eliot,  President  Emeritus,  Harvard  University.  Unitarian 
General  Conference,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  Oct.,  7,  1913. 


[142] 


HOW  LONG  MAY  A MAN  EXPECT  TO  LIVE? 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


In  the  March  number  of  the  British  Quarterly  (1913), 
there  is  an  article  by  Mr.  Edwin  Pugh,  entitled  “The 
. , Soul  of  the  Drunkard,  ” which  puts  the  argu- 
Champion  of  ment  for  moderate  drinking  in  a strangely 
Moderate  unethical  and  unscientific  manner.  The  old 
DrmMng  vicious  claim  is  urged  that  it  is,  on 

the  whole,  morally  wiser  and  better  to  drink  than 
to  abstain!  It  is  contended  that,  by  drinking  just 
up  to  the  point  of  danger  and  then  stopping 
short  of  intoxication,  a person  makes  moral  fiber, 
disciplines  the  will,  and  promotes  all  the  high  qualities 
of  noble  character.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  asserted 
that  abstainers,  as  a rule,  are  moral  weaklings,  who 
have  no  power  to  resist  temptation  and  endure  hard- 
ship. He  charges  abstainers  with  being  cowards; — 
afraid  of  experimenting  with  what  is  innocent  in  itself: 
not  brave  enough  to  trust  their  own  reason  and 
conscience ! 

Mr.  Pugh  has  no  sympathy  for  the  drunkard  and 
only  contempt  for  the  abstainer.  Of  the  person  who 
drinks  too  much  he  writes:  “So  he  becomes  a drimk- 
ard,  not  because  he  is  vicious  and  weak  and  silly,  but 
because  he  is  virtuous  enough  to  risk  his  virtue,  strong 
enough  to  want  to  prove  his  strength.  ” This  is,  quite 
obviously,  a most  incoherent  and  illogical  statement. 
It  is  as  much  as  to  say:  A man  becomes  sick,  not 
because  he  is  careless  about  eating  or  bathing,  but 

[ 143] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


because  he  is  brave  enough  to  experiment  with  filth  and 
gluttony ! A man  becomes  a criminal  not  because  he 
associates  with  criminals,  but  because  he  has  the  manli- 
ness to  invite  criminal  temptations,  in  order  that  he 
may  discover  whether  he  can  resist  them!  A woman 
loses  her  virtue,  not  because  she  is  weak,  but  because 
she  is  so  saintly  that  she  takes  the  risk  of  making  friends 
of  libertines ! But  such  a position  (it  is  not  argument) 
is  simply  “moral  anarchy.” 

As  an  English  critic  has  pointed  out:  “In  other 
words,  only  the  inebriate  is  to  abstain  and  abstinence 
is  to  be  the  mark  of  the  drimkard!  Go  on  drinking 
until  you  have  exceeded  the  fine  of  safety, — and  then 
stop!”  Mr.  Pugh’s  contention  simply  amoimts  to 
this:  You  are  a coward  unless  you  drink  up  to  the 
point  of  drunkenness,  but  if  you  take  a drop  more  and 
become  drunk,  you  are  a fool  deserving  no  sympathy. 
It  is  only  in  connection  with  the  problem  of  Drink 
that  we  ever  find  such  utter  and  inexcusable  foolishness ! 

All  such  writers  make  two  very  serious 
mistakes:  1st:  They  ignore  the  supremely 
important  fact  that  science  teaches  us  that 
the  chief  evil  does  not  lie  in  the  compara- 
tively few  cases  of  beastly  drunkenness, 
but  in  the  habit  of  drinking.  Any  and  all 
use  is  abuse!  The  small  amount  swallowed  makes 
mischief,  injuring  vital  organs,  lessening  mental  capac- 
ity, decreasing  industrial  eflSciency — even  though  the 
user  and  his  companions  are  unconscious  of  these  results: 
that  deception  being  a large  part  of  the  mischief. 

2d:  They  ignore  the  plainest  teaching  of 
experience  that  drinking  (not  simply  drunk- 
enness) carries  with  it,  as  a rule,  a demoral- 
izing influence.  By  impairing  the  perception, 
as  laboratory  experiments  abundantly  dem- 

[144] 


Medical 
Science 
Condemns 
the  Habit  of 
Drinking 


Moderate 

Drinking 

Morally 

Deadening 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


onstrate,  it  destroys  the  very  basis  for  quick  and 
accurate  moral  judgments.  By  inhibiting,  or  paralyz- 
ing, the  higher  activities  and  feelings  of  life,  acquired 
by  long  racial  training — modesty,  restraint,  self-con- 
trol,— it  breaks  the  check-rein  which  the  soul  holds 
over  the  animal,  and  so  lets  loose  the  brute  within 
us:  moral  disintegration  necessarily  follows.  Again, 
the  enslaving  power  of  liquor,  the  habit-forming,  in- 
fluence, lies  more  in  the  constant,  so-called  “ moderate” 
use,  than  in  the  occasional  intoxication.  The  same 
rule  holds  here  as  with  opium.  To  take,  now  and 
then,  a dangerous  dose  does  not  make  a morphine 
fiend.  It  is  the  constant  use  of  the  small  dose. 

Here,  it  may  be  well  to  allude  briefly 
to  the  foolish  claim  that  whisky-drinking 
accounts  for  the  vast  superiority  of  Euro- 
pean to  Asiatic  races.  But  a modern  in- 
stance puts  this  matter  in  a different  light. 
The  water-drinking  Japanese  were  more 
than  a match  for  the  alcohohzed  Russians ! 
Moreover,  to  pass  by  all  other  factors — climatic  con- 
ditions, racial  inheritances,  religious  ideals,  domestic 
habits,  food  supply, — and  attribute  European  superior- 
ity to  the  use  of  liquor,  is  about  the  most  fllogical  and 
absurd  proposition  that  can  be  advanced.  And  yet, 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  we  hear  this  theory  seriously 
advocated  by  some  men  of  prominence,  who  ought  to 
be  free  from  such  careless  and  even  harmful  speech. 

The  assertion  that  abstainers  are,  as  a 
rule,  moral  cowards,  is  too  absurd  to  deserve 
more  than  passing  attention.  Was  John 
Bright  a weakling?  He  was  a total  ab- 
stainer! Was  Father  Mathew  a weakling? 
He  was  a total  abstainer!  Was  Abraham  Lincoln  a 
weakling?  He  was  a total  abstainer!  Are  inventors 
[145] 


Water 

Drinking 

Japanese 

vs.  Vodka 

Drinking 

Russians 


Abstinence 
is  not 
Moral 
Cowardice 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


like  Edison,  philanthropists  like  Dr.  Grenfell,  statesmen 
like  Lloyd-George,  educators  like  Booker  Washington, 
generals  like  Earl  Roberts,  orators  like  Bryan,  leaders 
like  Clemenceau, — are  these  weaklings?  And  they 
are  total  abstainers!  Everywhere  railroad  manage- 
ments insist  on  sobriety:  Do  they  seek  weaklings? 
What  a blunder,  if  drinking  produces  courage! 


Sometimes  total  abstainers  are  con- 
Abstainers  dcmued  as  offensively  self-righteous:  taking 
righteous  Unseemly  pride  in  the  mere  fact  that  they 
do  not  drink.  But  the  good  housewife 
is  not  self-righteous  simply  because  she  keeps  her 
house  cleaner  than  her  friend  across  the  way.  The 
man  who  refuses  to  drink  the  polluted  water  used  by 
his  neighbors  is  not  thereby  censured  for  being  proud. 
The  abstainer  belongs  to  the  same  class:  those  who 
desire  to  lead  a wholesome  life.  He  is  not  a “ one- 
morality”  individual,  emphasizing  temperance  as  the 
only  saving  virtue.  If  he  gives  great  attention  to 
this  matter  it  is  simply  because  Drink  does  such  a 
vast  amount  of  evil.  To  him  abstinence  is  something 
more  than  a moral  quality.  It  is  a “life  necessity,” 
with  relations  reaching  vitally  into  all  departments  of 
individual  and  social  affairs. 

In  McClure's  Magazine  for  August,  1908‘ 
there  was  a startling  article  by  Prof.  Hugo 
Miinsterberg,  of  Harvard  University,  en- 
titled: “Prohibition  and  Social  Psychol- 
ogy,” which  advocated  the  superiority  of  moderate 
drinking  to  total  abstinence.  He  there  advocated  a 
“sufficient  use  of  intoxicants  to  secure  emotional  inspir- 
ation and  volitional  intensity.”  He  farther  claimed 
that  by  this  “moderate  drinking,”  a most  desirable 
moral  training  is  secured : “ So  man  is  schooling  himself 


[146] 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


for  the  active  and  effective  life  by  the  temperate  use  of 
exciting  beverages!” 

But  what  says  science?  Careful  experiments  in  a 
hundred  laboratories  prove  that  Drink,  even  in  small 
quantities,  paralyzes  the  higher  functions  and  faculties; 
pushes  reason  and  conscience  off  the  throne  and  gives 
a free  rein  to  animal  impulses;  weakens  the  power  of 
the  wiU  and  lessens  the  activity  of  the  imagination; 
deranges  all  the  senses  so  that  sight  and  hearing  are 
less  acute;  benumbs  the  fingers  so  that  they  act  more 
slowly;  and,  at  every  point,  not  only  destroys  life,  but 
deceives  the  user,  making  him  think  that  he  is  stronger 
and  quicker,  when  in  fact  he  is  weaker  and  slower! 
What  Drink  actually  does  is  the  exact  opposite  of 
giving  “emotional  inspiration  and  volitional  intensity.” 
It  seems  to  the  drinker  himself  to  do  that,  but  it  is  aU 
a he! 

The  most  astonishing  paragraph  in  Prof.  Miinster- 
berg’s  article  is  the  following  passage:  “The  German, 
the  Frenchman,  the  Itahan,  who  enjoys  his  glass  of 
fight  wine  and  then  wanders  joyful  and  elated  to  the 
masterpieces  of  the  opera,  serves  himself  better  than 
the  New  Englander  who  drinks  his  ice- water  and  sits 
satisfied  at  the  vaudeville  show,  world-far  from  real 
art.  Better  American  inspired  than  America  sober!” 

This  last  sentence  is  the  most  reprehen- 
Wit,  Humor  sible  ever  penned  by  a university  professor 
Md Mirth  jjj  “Better  America  inspired 

Dependent  than  America  sober.  ” But  why  this  alter- 
on  Drink  native?  Why  not  both  sober  and  inspired 
at  the  same  time?  As  already  shown  in 
these  pages,  it  is  the  unanimous  teaching  of  science 
that  alcohol  does  not  inspire  but  rather  deadens  the 
mind.  Its  influence  coarsens  art  and  lowers  the  quality 
of  pleasures.  We  have  abundant  testimony  that 
[147] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


temperance  people  are  not  destitute  of  mirth  and 
jollity.  An  eminent  German  professor,  Dr.  Martin 
Rade,  of  the  University  of  Marburg,  made  a notable 
address  some  five  years  ago  in  Berlin,  after  an  extensive 
tour  of  America,  in  which  he  spoke  in  highest  terms  of 
the  social  and  intellectual  brilliancy  of  the  many  ban- 
quets in  our  country  which  he  attended,  where  no  hquors 
ware  served.  A distinguished  German-American,  Prof. 
Walter  Rauschenbusch,  of  the  University  of  Rochester, 
speaking  about  the  same  time  in  Germany,  bore  similar 
testimony,  saying  that  the  wit  and  gaiety  of  American 
dinners,  without  liquors,  surpassed  those  that  he  had 
attended  in  the  Fatherland.  A man  of  the  very  widest 
world-experience.  Dr.  Samuel  J.  Barrows,  after  describ- 
ing the  remarkable  changes  in  New  England  customs, 
liquors  being  banished  from  many  social  gatherings, 
proceeded  to  make  this  comment;  “Yet  life  is  more 
cheerful,  education  more  abundant,  music  and  art 
more  popular,  and  the  physical  scale  of  h^dng  higher.” 
(“The  Outlook,”  Feb.  20,  1909).  No  artist  has  dared 
to  paint  a picture  representing  the  joy  of  heaven  as 
flowing  from  a wine-glass!  And  yet,  this  is  what  ought 
to  be  done,  if  what  Prof.  INIiinsterberg  teaches  is  true. 

The  interpretation  of  life  here  set  forth  is  too  material- 
istic; what  no  college  professor  fifty  years  ago  would 
have  dared  to  advocate.  How  low  an  ideal  of  life 
any  one  must  have,  who  contends  that  “ice- water” 
shuts  a person  out  from  the  enjoyment  of  the  opera 
and  that  only  a beer  bottle  can  enable  one  to  enjoy  a 
painter’s  masterpiece!  And  what  has  ice- water  to  do 
with  attendance  at  vaude^^[lle  shows?  Thousands  of 
American  teachers  (a  large  majority  abstainers)  an- 
nually visit  Europe  and  enjoy  its  art  and  music  as 
much  as  the  drinking  population  living  there. 

[148] 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


German 

Leaders 

Alarmed 


But  is  the  European  situation  as 
roseate  as  Prof.  Miinsterberg  would  have 
us  think?  Is  this  enjoyment  of  “wine  and 
opera”  in  the  German  Fatherland  (to 
allude  only  to  that  country)  as  innocent  or  beneficial 
as  he  claims?  German  judges  have  taken  alarm  and 
lifted  up  a voice  of  warning  against  the  prevalent  beer- 
drinking.  German  doctors  protest  against  it,  as 
destructive  of  the  race.  German  lawyers  have  formed 
a total  abstinence  society.  German  publicists  point 
out  the  grave  danger  here  to  public  health  and  the 
welfare  of  children.  German  educators  assert  that 
beer  is  harming  the  work  of  students.  The  German 
government  forbids  its  use  by  railroad  employees.  An 
eminent  German  professor  tells  us  that  drinking  every- 
where multiplies  accidents.  And  the  German  Emperor 
warns  his  soldiers  and  sailors  against  the  drink-habit, 
which  he  is  reported  recently  to  have  abandoned. 
Unfortunately,  Prof.  Miinsterberg  is  apparently  igno- 
rant of  the  temperance  awakening  in  his  native  land. 
See  The  Anti-Alcohol  Movement  in  Europe,  by  Ernest 
Gordon,  Chapters,  V.-VII. 

Prof.  Miinsterberg  is  so  anxious  that  the  American 
people  shall  have  less  care  and  more  mirth:  “If  wine 
can  make  one  forget  the  friction  and  pain  ...  by 
all  means  let  us  use  this  helper  to  civilization.  ” There 
is,  he  claims,  a psychological  necessity  for  alcohol  in 
order  to  produce  enjoyment.  But  he  certainly  ought 
to  know  that  eminent  scientists,  some  of  whose  teach- 
ings are  given  in  these  pages,  have  shown  that  the 
exhilaration  produced  by  alcohol  is  both  deceptive  and 
fleeting;  what  seems  like  new  strength  is  really  weak- 
ness; what  glows  for  a moment  as  joy  is  followed  by  a 
long  reaction  of  depression;  what  seems  like  fulness  of 
life  is  the  wasting  of  death.  It  is  common  knowledge 

[ 149] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


that  the  permanent  result  of  indulgence,  even  in  so- 
called  moderation,  is  to  make  men  morose,  gloomy,  and 
depressed.  The  individual  pays  for  his  one  hour  of 
animal  jollity  by  twenty-four  hours  of  despondent 
irritability.  He  also  writes:  “Alcohol  relieves  that 
daily  tension  most  directly.”  Very  true!  But  at  a 
ruinous  cost  of  life-tissue,  as  the  physiologist  shows 
us! 

According  to  Prof.  Munsterberg,  man  must  school 
himself  for  the  active  and  effective  life  by  Drink.  But 
what  does  the  appeal  to  experience  show.?  Great 
industrial  concerns  in  Germany,  and  many  in  America, 
like  the  Henry  C.  Frick  Company,  are  demanding  absti- 
nence or  are  taking  active  measures  to  lessen  or  abolish 
the  use  of  liquor.  What  a great  mistake  if  Prof.  Miin- 
sterberg  is  right!  If  he  is  right,  why  do  fraternal 
organizations  more  and  more  bar  out  those  who  use  or 
sell  liquor?  If  he  is  right,  why  do  insurance  companies 
discriminate  more  and  more  against  drinkers?  VTiere- 
ever  we  look  today  in  the  industrial  world,  we  find  that 
prohibitions  against  drinking  become  increasingly 
strong.  But  all  this  is  wrong,  if  Prof.  Miinsterberg  is 
right.  The  fact  is,  experience  everj"where  shows  that 
he  is  wrong.  The  saloon  is  not  a school  preparing  a 
man  for  “the  active  and  effective  life.”  It  deadens, 
degrades,  and  destroys. 

Five  years  ago,  the  eminent  archaeologist. 
Prof.  Flinders-Petrie,  %dgorously  discussed 
the  general  topic  of  “Constraint”  in  a 
popular  English  magazine.  In  making 
application  of  his  doctrine  of  “constraint” 
to  the  use  of  liquors.  Prof.  Flinders-Petrie  fell,  it  seems 
to  many,  into  some  exceedingly  injurious  errors. 
(“Hibbert  Journal,”  July,  1908). 

The  ethical  right  and  the  legal  justification  of  con- 

[150] 


Constraint 
for  the 
Public 
Welfare 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


straint  respecting  the  use  of  liquors  lie  in  “the  public 
good,”  which  is  far  more  seriously  endangered  by  the 
habit  than  Prof.  Flinders-Petrie  seems  to  be  aware. 
He  would  undoubtedly  admit  that  ninety-nine  men  have 
the  right  to  constrain  the  hundredth  man  from  com- 
mitting suicide  by  taking  a quick  poison.  But  have 
they  not  the  right  to  restrain  him  from  taking  a slow 
poison  that  will  end  his  life  in  five  years  ? And  if  they 
have  the  right  to  prevent  sudden  suicide,  have  they 
not  also  the  right  to  prevent  the  conditions  (created 
by  the  Drink  Habit)  which  produce  directly  or  indi- 
rectly a very  large  proportion  of  all  suicides  .f*  In  fact, 
is  it  not  the  solemn  duty  of  human  society  thus  to  pro- 
tect itself  and  its  members.^ 

Professor  Flinders-Petrie  would  probably  admit  that 
a government  has  the  right  to  prevent  a thousand 
parents  from  striking  their  children,  because  one  of 
the  blows  would  make  one  child  a lifelong  cripple. 
But  has  it  not  an  equal  right  to  prevent  parents  from 
drinking  whisky,  because  in  more  cases  than  one  in 
ten  the  results  are  harmful  to  children?  He  would 
probably  admit  that  the  people  have  the  right  to  restrain 
a family  from  using  water  from  a well  polluted  with 
typhoid  germs,  although  only  one  person  in  ten  in  the 
neighborhood  might  contract  the  disease  in  consequence, 
and  only  one  in  five  of  those  sick  might  die.  But  have 
not  the  people  an  equal  right  to  restrain  men  from  using 
what  causes  more  disease  and  death,  infinitely  more 
misery  and  degradation,  than  polluted  water?  The 
legal  right  becomes  here  a public  obligation.  He  would 
probably  admit  that  the  state  has  the  right  to  prohibit 
men  from  investing  their  money  in  a lottery.  But  does 
not  the  state  have  an  equal  right  to  prohibit  men,  not 
only  from  wasting  their  money  on  liquors,  but  from 
using  it  in  a way  that  incapacitates  them  for  efficient 
[151] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


citizenship?  Moreover,  a few  lotteries  would  not  be 
a social  pest  inciting  to  crime  and  producing  poverty 
comparable  with  the  Drink  Habit,  nor  would  they  be  a 
political  plague  like  the  liquor  traffic,  which  demoralizes 
the  making  and  the  enforcing  of  laws. 

Professor  Flinders- Petrie  argues  against 
Constraint  the  application  of  “constraint”  to  the 
MoraUy  Hquor  problem  on  several  grounds,  three  of 
Injurious  which  will  here  be  considered: 

(1)  It  destroys  self-reliance.  But  do 
restrictive  health  and  sanitary  laws  destroy  self-reli- 
ance? Do  parental  prohibitions  of  deadly  poisons  and 
vicious  habits  destroy  self-reliance?  No  greater  ethical 
fallacy  ever  entered  the  mind  of  man  than  the  assump- 
tion that  liberty  to  get  drunk  produces  self-reliance. 
One  might  as  well  argue  that  liberty  to  carry  fire-arms 
makes  people  peaceable.  Self-reliance  is  not  the  prod- 
uct of  the  wine  cup  or  the  whisky  bottle.  Common 
observation  and  scientific  discovery  prove  that  it  is 
Drink  that  destroys  seK-reliance. 

(2)  It  is  argued  that  “constraint”  weakens  character 
by  precluding  temptation.  This  is  an  old  but  fallacious 
argument  which  an  appeal  to  the  facts  of  life  decisively 
disproves.  May  we  not  in  all  soberness  ask:  Are 
there  not  temptations  enough  in  life  without  adding 
those  of  Drink?  Moreover,  if  this  is  a sound  argument, 
then,  to  develop  character,  we  ought  to  invent  new 
temptations:  add  opium,  cocaine,  and  others — the 
more  the  better!  It  does  not  follow  that  the  normal 
man  of  the  twentieth  century  must  have  alcohol  because 
his  ancestors  craved  intoxicants:  their  thirst  for  blood 
is  no  warrant  for  us  to  kill!  That  savages  make  bigger 
fools  of  themselves  with  Drink  than  civilized  men  is 
surely  no  proof  that  the  use  of  whisky  develops  char- 
acter: Why  be  a fool  at  aU?  Again,  if  Drink  strength- 
[152] 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


ens  character,  why  not  give  the  savage  more?  The 
policy  of  “constraint”  in  Indian  territory,  America, 
has  helped  to  save  the  American  Indian,  and  these 
“Red-Men”  were  themselves  anxious  to  make  pro- 
hibition a part  of  the  constitution  of  the  new  state  of 
Oklahoma. 

(3)  “Constraint”  tends  to  deceit  and  lawlessness  in 
prohibition  states,  we  are  told.  But  is  not  all  law  met 
by  deceit  on  the  part  of  criminals .f*  The  “deceit  and 
lawlessness”  to  be  found  in  our  “prohibition  states” 
is  very  largely  intruded  by  those  who  live  in  “liquor 
communities.”  There  would  be  little  of  this  lawless- 
ness were  it  not  for  brewers  and  distillers  outside,  who 
force  themselevs  in  every  way  upon  these  temperance 
states,  having  had  in  the  past,  unfortunately,  in  their 
lawless  operations,  the  support  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, a situation  at  present  (1913)  modified  by  the 
Webb  Law,  which  lifts  the  bar  and  enables  the  several 
states  to  enforce  their  own  laws  against  the  intrusion 
of  liquor  from  outside  their  own  territory.  Is  it  right 
to  hold  prohibitionists  in  Portland  responsible  for  the 
deceit  inspired  by  the  intemperate  summer  visitor  from 
New  York  City,  and  for  the  lawlessness  of  the  brewers 
of  St.  Louis,  who  spend  money  lavishly  to  override 
the  laws  and  corrupt  the  officials  of  Maine?  But  even 
with  this  intruded  lawlessness,  the  state  of  Maine  is 
not  what  Professor  Flinders-Petrie  would  have  us  believe 
it  to  be.  He  has  been  misinformed  by  the  apologists 
of  the  Drink  Habit  and  the  liquor  traffic.  In  propor- 
tion to  population,  its  criminal  and  pauper  and  lunacy 
records  are  shorter,  while  its  per  capita  wealth  and 
newspaper  circulation  are  larger  than  in  any  other 
parts  of  our  country.  One  other  decisive  fact  may  be 
mentioned  here:  Maine  contributes,  in  proportion  to 
population,  more  names  to  “Who’s  Who  in  America” 

[153] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


than  the  average  for  the  nation,  far  ahead  of  such  states 
as  New  York  and  Pennsylvania! 

It  is  certainly  surprising  to  read  the 
The  Man  assertion  by  Professor  Flinders-Petrie,  that 

who  Drinks  State  has  no  right  to  prevent  men  from 

in3^ure°^  going  off  into  a remote  valley,  where  there 
Himseu  are  no  women  to  be  mauled  and  no  children 
AJone  corrupted,  and  having  “a  glorious 

drunk!”  His  argument  is  that  we  must 
not  insist  on  “dry  nursing”  for  grown-up  men!  But  if 
this  is  justifiable,  why  may  not  men  go  off  by  them- 
selves and  indulge  in  gambling?  The  simple  fact  is 
that  the  men  who  do  go  off  in  this  way  soon  come  back 
home  and  bring  results  that  are  harmful  to  their  com- 
munities. It  is  not  the  same  man  who  returns.  He 
may  not  have  mauled  his  wife,  but  he  is  all  the  more 
likely  to  do  it  because  of  that  experience.  His  children 
may  not  have  seen  him  drunk,  but  does  it  help  them  to 
know  that  he  was  on  a debauch?  It  is  not  “dry  nurs- 
ing” for  the  state  to  prohibit  men  from  wasting  time 
and  energy,  money  and  strength,  in  debaucheries  that 
are  out  of  sight.  Brutish  revelry  is  not  innocent 
because  hidden  in  a distant  valley : its  harmful  influence 
cannot  be  hidden. 

The  temperance  problem  is,  after  aU,  not  so  much 
a mere  matter  of  sentiment  as  a matter  of  science. 
The  mighty  wave  of  temperance  agitation  now  sweep- 
ing around  the  world  is  a practical  application  of  the 
discovery  that  alcohol,  even  in  small  quantities,  is  “a 
destroyer  of  life”:  It  is  a movement  for  race-preserva- 
tion. Hospital  and  Insurance  records  show  some,  but 
not  all,  of  its  destructiveness  to  human  life.  Consider 
the  appalling  lesson  taught  by  the  accompanying  chart : 
Death  Rates  in  Pneumonia:  Thousands  taking  the 
disease  because  drinkers,  and  thousands  failing  to 

[154] 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


recover  because  of  their  drink  habits!  Even  those 
who  contend  that  alcohol  has  some  food  and  medicinal 
values,  under  certain  conditions,  admit  that,  on  the 
whole,  as  commonly  used,  it  is  destructive  to  life. 
Therefore,  the  awakened  and  instructed  conscience  of 
mankind  is  insisting  that  every  possible  preventive 
measure  must  be  used,  educational,  social,  and  indus- 
trial; that  every  possible  method  for  saner  and  safer 
amusements  must  be  instituted.  But  in  this  gigantic 
struggle  there  is  also  a place  for  stern  and  inexorable 
law.  The  state  has  a right  to  restrain  and  prohibit 
where  religion  cannot  persuade  nor  education  prevent. 

As  strange  as  it  may  seem,  it  is  neverthe- 
The  Fallacy  less  a sad  fact  that  during  the  last  few  years 
Tem^ation  ^ number  of  prominent  writers  have  taken 
is  Good  positions  similar  to  those  occupied  by  Pro- 
Discipiine  fessors  Munsterberg  and  Flinders-Petrie. 

They  claim  that  drinking  liquor,  especially 
by  young  men,  provides  admirable  and  important 
ethical  training.  The  argument  is  this:  The  use  of 
liquor  is  attended  by  the  temptation  to  drink  too  much. 
To  resist  this  temptation,  to  keep  within  the  bounds 
of  safety,  to  guard  against  excess,  — this  provides 
moral  discipline  of  the  very  highest  value.  Some  will 
fall,  but,  on  the  whole,  there  will  be  a surplus  of  good. 
The  theory  is  that  the  will  is  trained  by  contact  with 
the  temptations  incident  to  drinking  liquor. 

If  true,  this  is  a very  important  matter;  but,  if  false, 
a most  deadly  teaching.  What,  then,  are  the  facts 

I.  If  drinking  provides  valuable  moral  training  for 
young  men,  it  is  surely  just  as  much  needed  by  young 
women,  and  those  who  advocate  this  doctrine  must 
admit  that  women  ought  to  patronize  the  saloon  as 
frequently  as  men.  And  at  what  age  ought  this  pre- 
cious ethical  discipline  to  begin?  How  long  after 
[155] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


children  learn  to  walk  and  talk?  Their  wills  and  con- 
sciences need  training  at  a very  early  age.  And,  if 
drinking  bears  such  valuable  moral  fruitage,  parents 
ought  to  see  to  it  that  the  custom  is  early  begim.  Per- 
haps this  is  just  what  is  needed  to  give  the  pub  he 
schools  the  moral  excellence  which  some  people  claim 
they  so  much  need.  An  open  bar  in  the  high  school 
to  develop  the  will  and  conscience  of  the  students, 
how  fine  that  would  be! 

II.  The  theory  surely  involves  us  in 
Is  the  some  remarkable  incongruities.  It  is  gen- 

, erally  admitted  that  the  saloon  is  one  of 
for  Moral  the  w’orst  (.11  not  the  worst)  mstitutions 
Development?  among  men,  closely  associated  with  crim- 
inals, productive  of  insanity  and  pauperism, 
linked  to  bad  politics,  presided  over  by  men  of  low 
ideals  and  practices,  and  turning  the  feet  of  many  to 
brothel  and  gambling  den.  It  does  not  seem  exactly 
scienctific  to  send  young  men  to  such  a place  to  secure 
invaluable  moral  discipline.  How  can  the  evil  tree 
bear  good  fruit? 

III.  If  a wise  policy  to  follow  with  liquors,  why  not 
in  other  directions?  For  example,  why  not  teach 
young  men  to  use  opium  for  the  same  purpose,  to 
train  the  will  by  learning  just  where  to  stop?  If  it  is 
a helpful  practice  to  walk  on  the  very  edge  of  the  slip- 
pery precipice  in  order  to  acquire  “nerve,”  why  not 
have  young  people  learn  to  resist  temptation  and 
develop  the  will  by  a similar  use  of  other  narcotics? 
We  may  go  farther;  it  is  then  a vise  practice  to  intro- 
duce a libertine  into  a family  of  boys  and  girls  to  develop 
high  ideals  of  chastity!  Discipline  their  will  power  by 
letting  them  learn  to  resist  his  enticements!  E\’i- 
dently,  Jesus  was  wrong  when  he  introduced  into  his 
[156] 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


immortal  prayer  the  petition,  “Lead  us  not  into 
temptation.  ” 

IV.  Is  it  not  pertinent  to  ask,  are  there  not  enough 
inevitable  temptations  in  life  without  multiplying  the 
needless  liquor  temptations,  which  so  often  cause  such 
terrible  distress  and  destruction.?  It  is  true  that  it  is 
not  well  to  shield  and  cosset  the  young  overmuch. 
They  do  need  wise  discipline.  They  must  be  trained 
to  do  hard  things.  But  discipline  does  not,  as  a rule, 
issue  solely  from  struggles  with  temptation.  It  comes 
from  bearing  burdens,  from  services  rendered,  from 
tasks  carefully  performed.  Many  of  the  noblest 
characters  in  history  seldom  wrestled  with  what  we 
call  temptations.  But  life  is  full  of  temptations  quite 
apart  from  beer  mug,  wine  glass,  or  whisky  bottle.  It 
is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  have  sufficient  temptations 
for  purposes  of  discipline  in  any  one’s  life,  to  foster 
those  connected  with  drinking.  Moreover,  those 
whose  wills  are  most  strengthened  and  best  prepared 
to  render  noblest  service  to  the  world  are  those  who 
resist  the  temptation  to  drink.  Those  who  acquire 
the  most  moral  fibre  out  of  contact  with  the  liquor 
habit  are  those  who  never  begin  it. 

V.  What  does  the  appeal  to  life  really 
Are  show?  Do  the  moderate  drinkers  who 

Driver?  short  of  drunkenness  possess  a higher 

the  Highest  morality  than  abstainers?  No  one  can 
Type  of  look  ovcT  his  neighborhood  and  find  proof 

of  fsuch  a monstrous  proposition.  That 
some  moderate  drinkers  outrank  in  char- 
acter some  abstainers  is  very  true,  but  common  experi- 
ence does  not  show  that  to  be  the  rule.  On  the  other 
hand,  from  two  wide  fields  of  recent  experiment  the 
exact  opposite  is  shown  to  be  true.  Distinguished 
generals  tell  us  that  it  is  the  universal  experience  in 

[157] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  British  army  that,  whenever  abstinence  becomes 
the  habit  of  soldiers,  the  petty  crimes  decrease  and  the 
moral  tone  increases.  Many  experiments  in  large 
industrial  plants  in  Germany  prove  that  where  the 
use  of  liquors  has  been  lessened  there  are  fewer  quar- 
rels among  workmen  and  a noticeable  improvement 
in  the  morals  of  the  men.  These  facts  ought  to  be 

VI.  This  argument  that  moderate  drink- 
ing is  morally  advantageous  is  pecuharly 
unsound  and  mischievous,  because  the 
liquor  temptations  are  especially  seductive 
and  deceptive.  They  are  not  like  the 
ordinary  temptations  of  life.  In  the  first  place,  no 
man  is  a competent  judge  of  the  amount  that  he  can 
safely  drink.  Liquor  completely  deceives  the  user. 
He  thinks  that  it  makes  him  warmer,  stronger,  heathier, 
wiser,  whereas,  in  fact,  the  actual  results  are  exactly 
opposite.  In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a hundred  the 
onlooker  realizes  that  the  drinker  has  had  too  much, 
while  he  himself  is  sure  that  he  has  not  passed  the 
limit  of  safety. 

In  the  second  place,  alcohol  is  a habit- 
forming drug,  which  tends  to  weaken  the 
will  and  to  blur  the  perceptions.  The 
habit  grows  from  month  to  month,  while 
the  power  of  resistance  lessens.  Instead 
of  providing  discipline,  it  forges  bonds.  The  man  with 
a whisky  bottle  is  never  complete  master  of  himseK. 
His  master  is  in  the  “bottle.”  The  bondage  is  all  the 
worse,  because  it  makes  the  slave  feel  that  he  is  the 
only  free  man  in  the  world.  Of  the  scores  of  men  at  a 
saloon  bar  during  any  day,  many  go  away  with  less 
power  of  resistance  and  few  indeed  carry  home  anj'thing 
but  a lighter  purse  and  a heavier  heart.  That  is  not 

[158] 


Alcohol 
a Habit- 
Forming 
Drug 


decisive. 

Liquor 
Temptation 
is  Peculiarly 
Deceptive 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


the  place  where  patriots  are  made  or  good  parents 
trained.  To  advise  young  men  to  resort  to  drinking 
liquor  in  order  to  acquire  the  needed  discipline  of  life 
is  to  urge  them  to  play  with  fire.  It  is  leading  them  to 
become  slaves  of  a custom  that  constantly  lessens  the 
power  to  resist  temptation.  It  associates  them  with 
forces  making  for  unrighteousness.  It  blinds  them  to 
the  clearest  and  most  important  teachings  of  science 
respecting  the  real  influence  of  alcohol.  The  time  is 
near  at  hand  when  no  intelligent  person  will  indulge 
in  advice  which  is  nothing  less  than  “ moral  anarchy.  ” 
In  pronouncing  sentence  upon  the  two  men  convicted 
of  violating  the  Mann  Act  (against  the  while  slave 
traffic),  at  the  close  of  one  of  the  most  notorious  trials 
in  San  Francisco,  Sept.  17, 1913,  Judge  William  C.  Van 
Fleet,  of  the  United  States  District  Court,  used  these 
words:  “I  wish  to  say  that  all  through  this  case  there 
is  the  evidence  that  Drink  had  its  paralyzing  influence 
upon  the  morals  and  the  minds  of  these  men  and  the 
young  girls  with  whom  they  went  on  that  trip  to  Reno. 
The  terrible,  debasing  influence  of  the  saloon  and  the 
roadhouse  is  too  disgustingly  apparent,  and  I make  the 
observation  here  that  society  must  pay  the  price  for 
permitting  the  existence  of  these  highly  objectionable 
places.”  And  yet,  we  are  told  that  such  “moderate 
drinking”  as  these  men  and  women  practiced, — none 
were  drunkards, — is  an  indispensable  element  in  char- 
acter-building! It  is  certainly  mournful,  and  almost 
maddening,  to  find  educated  people  advocating  such  a 
demoralizing  doctrine. 


[159] 


A Summary  presented  by  Prof.  Howard  A.  Kelly,  M.  D.,  Johns 
Hopkins  Medical  School,  on  The  Alcoholic  Problem  in  Everyday  Life: 

(1)  Alcohol  is  non-eflBcient  as  a food,  a most  awful,  wasteful  sub- 
stance. 

(2)  May  be  classed  as  a drug  and  a poison. 

(3)  Has  no  rightful  position  as  a medicine. 

(4)  Destroys  individual,  domestic,  and  civic  felicity. 

(5)  Increases  taxation  by  filling  prisons,  madhouses,  and  work- 
houses. 

(6)  Greatest  foe  to  civilization  in  heathen  lands. 

(7)  Therefore  could  be  wholly  abolished  with  profit.  The  Alcoholic 
Problem,  U.  S.  Senate  Document,  No.  48,  1909. 

“Alcohol  is  not  a food  in  the  proper  acceptation  of  the  word.” 
Sir  James  Barr,  M.  D.,  Alcohol  as  a Therapeutic  Agent.  British 
Medical  Journal,  July  1,  1905. 

“I  cannot  say  that  I am  a temperance  agitator,  but  I am  a surgeon. 
My  success  depends  upon  my  brain  being  clear,  my  muscles  firm,  and 
my  nerves  steady.  No  one  can  take  alcoholic  liquors  without  blunt- 
ing these  physical  powers,  which  I must  always  keep  on  edge.  As  a 
surgeon,  1 must  not  drink.”  Prof.  Adolf  Lorenz,  M.  D.,  Imperial 
Hospital,  Vienna. 

“It  is  usual  to  charge  the  temperance  lecturer  with  exaggeration. 
It  is  with  difficulty  that  men  believe  him  when  he  lays  bare  before 
them  the  dreadful  ravages  of  intemperance.  The  fact  does  not  sur- 
prise me.  Few  have  thoughtfully  lifted  the  veil  which  the  demon  of 
alcohol  has,  with  artful  cunning,  drawn  over  his  wreckage;  few  have 
peered  with  searching  eye  into  the  fathomless  depths  of  misery  and 
sin  which  open  beneath  the  feet  of  the  countless  victims  of  intem- 
perance.” Archbishop  John  Ireland,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota. 

“It  seems  to  me  that  the  problem  of  intemperance  is  one  of  the 
gravest  and  most  urgent  that  has  ever  confronted  humanity.”  Hall 
Caine,  the  novelist. 


1160] 


DEATH-RATES  IN  PNEUMONIA 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 

There  are  many  people  who  insist  that  beer  is  harm- 
less, and  that  the  way  to  solve  the  problem  of  intem- 
perance and  cure  the  evils  of  Drink  is  to  drive  out 
whisky  by  fostering  the  larger  use  of  malt  liquors.  Let 
us  appeal  to  the  facts  of  experience  and  the  teachings 
of  the  laboratory. 

It  is  the  common  claim  made  by  those 

ygjjt  who  advocate  this  policy  that  there  is  no 

Liquors  no  drink-problem  in  countries  like  Germany, 

Cure  for  France,  and  Italy,  where  light  liquors  are 
Intemperance  . , , V,  , • i , 

extensively  used.  Rut  the  truth  is  that  the 

mtemperanee  of  Germany,  France  and  Italy  is  recog- 
nized by  statesmen  in  these  lands  as  one  of  the  most 
serious  evils  with  which  they  have  to  contend.  An 
able  writer  in  the  London  Saturday  Review  recently 
stated:  “The  increase  of  alcoholism  is  becoming  pain- 
fully evident  all  over  Italy.”  A few  months  ago  the 
Italian  Premier,  Hon.  Luigi  Luzzatti,  in  submitting 
his  bill  for  the  reduction  of  intemperance,  presented 
a great  mass  of  evidence,  conclusively  proving  two 
things:  First,  that  deaths  from  alcoholism  in  Italy 
are  rapidly  increasing,  while  the  general  death-rate  is 
falling;  and  second,  that  drinking  lighter  liquors  has 
not  decreased  drunkenness,  nor  lessened  the  crime, 
poverty,  and  insanity  due  to  the  Drink  Habit.  These 
are  decisive  words. 

Prof.  Cesare  Lombroso,  one  of  the  most  noted 

[161] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


alienists,  not  only  of  Italy  but  of  the  world,  recently 
deceased,  published  not  long  ago  in  the  Archivio  di 
Psichiatria,  which  he  edited,  the  followdng  stirring 
appeal  by  one  of  the  insane  asylum  superintendents 
of  Italy,  Dr.  Antonini: 

“The  hospitals  and  insane  asylums  are  filled  with 
Italian  Tes-  alcoholic  patients;  consumption,  promoted  by  alcoholic 
timony  that  degeneracy,  rages;  pellagra  joins  itself  with  alcoholic 
Insanity  poisoning;  crime  is  becoming  more  frequent  among  the 

Disease  and  young;  the  suicides  are  legion;  the  people  are  growing 
Crime  steadily  weaker  and  more  morally  degenerate.”  To 

this  appeal  Lombroso  added  his  endorsement,  and  also 
a protest  against  the  indifference  of  the  government  respecting  alco- 
holic liquors,  demanding  that  rigid  legislation  be  passed  similar  to 
our  restrictive  laws  in  many  American  states.  Many  statements 
were  made  at  the  Milan  International  Congress  on  Alcoholism  (1913) 
by  prominent  Italian  delegates  in  confirmation  of  these  views.  Hon. 
H.  E.  Falcioni,  the  Italian  Secretary  of  State,  reported  that  deaths 
from  alcoholism  have  nearly  trebled  since  1889! 

The  testimony  of  such  statesmen  and  scientists  ought 
to  enforce  silence  upon  returning  American  tourists, 
who  carelessly  report  that  there  are  no  drink-evils 
in  lands  where  wine  and  beer  are  freely  used.  Here, 
also,  earnest  protest  should  be  made  against  the  foolish 
contention  of  some  travelers  that  it  is  necessary  for 
one  going  abroad  to  drink  beer,  as  the  water  is  danger- 
ous! As  a matter  of  fact,  no  such  need  exists.  In  the 
great  majority  of  places,  the  common  water  supply  is 
just  as  good  as  it  is  in  America  ; and  in  the  second  place, 
pure  bottled  water  can  everywhere  be  bought  for  less 
money  than  is  paid  for  wine  or  beer. 

It  is  a well-known  fact  that  Belgium  has 
Drunkenness  largest  per  Capita  consumption  of  beer 

Belgium  of  any  country  in  the  world.  Therefore, 
according  to  the  advocates  of  beer-drinking 

[162] 


THE  DISCIPLINE  THAT  DESTROYS 


as  a cure  for  the  evils  of  intemperance,  there  ought  to 
be  no  drunkenness  and  no  liquor  problem  in  that  land. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  case.  The  menace  of  Drink 
is  there  very  serious.  To  prove  this,  only  one  witness 
need  be  called.  One  of  its  distinguished  statesmen, 
M.  Jules  Lejeune,  speaking  in  1897,  said:  “With  us  in 
Belgium,  alcohol  [by  which  he  meant  liquors  in  general, 
including  beer]  produces  frightful  ravages!”  More 
recent  testimony  is  equally  emphatic. 

A worse  situation  exists  in  France. 
About  two  years  ago,  1911,  the  Brewing 
in  France  Trade  Review  stated  that  the  use  of  beer  in 

that  land  had  recently  increased  25  per 
cent.,  but  the  use  of  the  heavier  liquors  has  also  in- 
creased during  the  same  period  (being  now  nearly  twice 
per  capita  what  it  is  in  Great  Britain !) . And  never  have 
the  evils  of  Drink  been  so  serious  there  as  at  present. 
Five  years  ago  a notable  report  was  presented  to  the 
Academie  de  Medicin,  showing  the  alarming  increase 
of  deaths  in  France  from  alcoholism.  While  drinking 
more  and  more  wine  and  beer,  from  year  to  year,  French- 
men have  been  using  more  and  more  absinthe  (worse 
than  whisky,  but  in  the  same  class  of  heavy  liquors), 
the  increase  being  some  tenfold  per  capita  in  the  last 
generation,  a fact  which  proves  that  drinking  wine  and 
beer  does  not  lessen  the  evils  of  Drink  and  does  not 
decrease  the  use  of  heavier  liquors. 

The  French  government,  in  an  official  document 
issued  in  1905,  declared:  “In  this  region  (Brittany) 
people  are  so  constantly  under  the  influence  of  liquor 
that  the  authorities  do  not  interfere  except  the  offenders 
are  in  a condition  which  prevents  them  from  moving  or 
which  causes  public  scandal.”  Even  the  “Trade”  in 
England  admits  the  sad  situation  in  France.  In 
the  Brewing  Trade  Review  for  Feb.,  1909,  a letter  by 

[163] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


French 

Catholic 

Clergy 

Alarmed 


Sir  Edwin  Durning-Lawrence  is  printed,  in  which  these 
words  are  found:  “No  one  acquainted  with  the  facts 
can  fail  to  feel  proud  of  the  comparative  sobriety  of 
our  country  as  compared  with  other  nations,  especially 
with  France!”  Drink  shops  in  France,  we  learn,  in- 
creased from  355,000  in  1881,  to  480,000  in  1911:  now 
one  to  every  80  persons— for  every  bakery  three  bars! 
In  this  stationary  population,  insanity  has  increased 
in  these  30  years  from  47,000  to  70,000  cases!  Evi- 
dently “light  liquors”  have  not  solved  the  drink-prob- 
lem in  that  land ! 

No  wonder  that  the  French  CathoHc 
clergy,  alarmed  at  the  progress  of  alcohohsm 
in  France,  are  beginning  to  take  measures 
against  it.  The  leaders  in  the  movement 
are  Bishop  Turinaz  of  Nancy  and  Bishop 
Latty  of  Chdlons.  Bishop  Turinaz’s  book,  “Three 
Scourges  of  the  Workers,”  is  a volume  made  up  of 
pastoral  letters  sent  to  all  the  diocesan  clergy  and  read 
in  the  churches.  It  deals  largely  with  Drink.  The 
Abbe  Ract  has  issued  a volume  of  317  pages  entitled, 
“Alcohohsm  and  Decadence,”  and  the  Abbe  Gibier 
one  called  “Our  Social  Sores — Alcohohsm,”  509  pp. 
Abbe  Lemmens  (Lidge)  has  published  many  exceUent 
works  on  this  subject.  Abbe  Perrot  has  issued  a power- 
ful and  popular  book,  “King  Alcohol.”  Cardinal 
Mercier  of  Liege,  Mgr.  Duparc,  and  Abbe  Beaupin 
are  also  prominent  in  this  movement.  There  is  much 
anti-alcohol  literatnre  in  pamphlet  form  for  wide  cir- 
culation. Bishop  Latty  has  introduced  temperance 
instruction  into  confirmation  classes  and  even  into 
Catholic  schools.  The  National  League  against  Alco- 
hohsm (Paris)  has  printed  a great  number  of  works  on 
this  subject,  large  and  small,  for  old  and  young,  pre- 
pared by  eminent  churchmen  and  leading  scientists. 

[164] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


The  situation  in  other  European  countries 
is  similar.  No  case  can  be  found  where  a 
in  Germany  larger  use  of  beer  has  decreased  any  of  the 
evils  due  to  Drink.  The  eminent  scientist. 
Prof.  Emil  Kraepelin  of  Munich,  testifies:  “In  the 
production  of  alcoholism  in  Munich,  beer  undoubtedly 
plays  the  chief  r6le.  It  must  be  accepted  that  beer  is 
capable  of  producing  typical  delirium  tremens.”  In  the 
year  1897,  over  14,000  persons  were  sent  by  German 
Courts  to  institutions  to  be  treated  for  alcoholism, — 
that  too  in  the  beer-drinking  Fatherland,  where  drunk- 
enness is  looked  upon  lightly!  And  evidence  was 
presented  at  the  Fourteenth  International  Hygienic 
Congress  that  hospital  cases  of  alcoholism  in  Germany 
have  increased fold  in  the  past  twenty  years.  No 
wonder  the  Emperor  is  alarmed  over  Drink ! No  wonder 
that  a noted  scientist  of  Munich,  Prof.  Max  von  Gruber, 
exclaims:  “One  cannot  say  anything  too  bad  about 
alcohol!”  An  eminent  authority  of  Basel,  Dr.  H. 
Blocher,  a leader  of  the  Swiss  Socialists,  makes  this 
statement:  “The  whole  question  whether  beer  can 
be  used  in  the  war  against  spirits  has  not  only  been 
settled  long  ago  to  the  disfavor  of  beer,  but  today  it  is 
senseless  and  dangerous,  since  it  veils  the  real  danger 
which  threatens  us  and  conceals  the  abyss  before  which 
we  stand.”  A distinguished  German,  Prof.  Gustav 
von  Bunge,  asserts:  “No  other  drink  [referring  to  beer] 
is  so  seductive.  It  has  been  in  Germany  worse  than 
the  whisky  pest,  because  beer  is  more  apt  to  lead  to 
immoderate  drinking.”  Another  German,  Dr.  Hugo 
Hoppe,  a great  nerve  specialist  of  Konigsberg,  declares: 
“On  account  of  the  democratic  equality  with  which 
beer  has  established  itself,  the  dangers  of  beer-alcohol- 
ism are  much  greater  than  from  wine  or  whisky.” 

Recently,  an  eminent  German  scientist,  Johannes 

[165] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Leonhart,  M.  D.,  has  given  very  decisive  testimony 
on  this  very  point.  He  writes: 

“In  1905,  6,046  persons  were  arrested  in  Berlin  on  account  of  drunk- 
enness. This  of  course  represents  only  a small  proportion  of  the  in- 
toxication. The  well-to-do  classes  do  not  figure  in  this  for  they  are 
able  to  call  a cab  to  be  taken  home  without  attracting  attention. 
In  70  out  of  every  100  convictions  in  Berlin  the  offence  was  found 
to  have  been  committed  during  intoxication.  At  least  10,000  persons 
are  annually  brought  before  the  courts  of  the  city  as  a result  of  taking 
alcohol.  The  percentage  of  sickness,  due  wholly  or  in  part  to  alcohol, 
varies  in  different  cities.  In  Charlottenburg,  in  1904,  Dr.  Gravitz 
reported  that  20  per  cent,  of  the  cases  received  in  the  hospital  were 
alcoholics.  In  the  last  twenty-five  years  the  number  received  into 
the  hospitals  on  account  of  alcoholism  has  quintupled,  while  the 
population  has  only  increased  about  a third.  Unless  alcohol  is  com- 
bated, the  campaigns  against  tuberculosis  and  syphilis  will  be  much 
more  difficult.  The  connection  between  alcoholism  and  immorality 
has  now  been  shown  so  unmistakably  that  it  is  clear  no  progress  can 
be  made  in  fighting  immorality  without  at  the  same  time  fighting 
alcohol.  Hamburg  has  set  the  example  of  appropriating  material 
support  to  the  Good  Templars.  The  question  concerning  alcohol 
is  not  whether  Meyer  or  Schultz  believes  that  he  can  take  two  or  three 
glasses  of  beer  a day  without  harm,  but.  How  is  it  possible  to  diminish 
the  immense  amount  of  injury  from  it  that  the  whole  German  people 
suffer.” 

In  the  same  line,  we  have  the  statement  of  Dr.  B. 
Strehler  of  Neisse  that,  according  to  a conservative 
estimate,  founded  upon  the  statistics  of  numerous  city 
and  county  districts,  the  number  of  drunkards  in  Ger- 
many may  be  placed  at  about  400,000  who,  if  put 
shoulder  to  shoulder,  would  make  a line  of  dangerous 
derelicts  some  hundred  and  sixty  miles  long!  That  does 
not  show  that  beer-drinking  is  a very  successful  “cure!  ” 
A scientific  expert  of  Germany,  Prof.  Adolf  von  Struem- 
pell  of  Leipzig  writes:  “Nothing  is  more  erroneous 
from  the  physician’s  standpoint  than  to  think  of  di- 

[166] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


minishing  the  destructive  effects  of  alcoholism  by  sub- 
stituting beer  for  other  alcoholic  drinks.” 

Mr.  Thomas  A.  Edison — the  great  in- 
EdiLn  saw  ventor,  before  sailing  home  from  Hamburg, 
in  Germany  after  a visit  to  Germany  in  1911,  expressed 
some  remarkable  views  about  Germany 
and  the  Germans  to  the  special  correspondent  of  the 
New  York  World  who  accompanied  him  throughout  his 
European  tour.  He  was  much  interested  in  the  indus- 
trial activities  of  Hamburg,  but  he  found  almost  every- 
where in  the  “Fatherland”  evidences  of  the  injurious 
effects  of  excessive  beer-drinking,  especially  in  the  recent 
architecture  of  the  country.  What  a striking  com- 
mentary upon  the  fantastic  notion  of  Prof.  Hugo 
Miinsterberg  that  the  high  art  of  the  Germans  is  due 
to  much  beer-drinking!  And  this,  not  from  a temper- 
ance fanatic,  but  from  a keenly  practical  man,  the 
world’s  greatest  inventor. 

There  is  no  more  harmful  belief  held  by 
a Hw^'ess  people  today  than  the  notion  that  beer  is  an 

Drink  innocent  drink.  The  vital  statistics  of 

Great  Britain  show  that  certain  serious 
diseases,  like  gout,  liver  troubles,  diabetes,  are  from 
three  to  five  times  more  common  among  brewers  and 
bar-tenders  (who  chiefly  sell  malt  liquors)  than  among 
the  people  in  general.  One  of  the  most  eminent  Euro- 
pean authorities  on  insanity.  Prof.  Albert  Mafiaim, 
of  the  University  of  Liege,  found  that  about  one-half 
the  persons  admitted  to  a certain  asylum  as  “ alcoholics  ” 
had  used  nothing  but  beer  and  similar  drinks.  So 
common  is  the  injury  done  to  the  heart  by  beer-drinking, 
that  this  special  trouble  is  known  as  the  “ beer-drinker ’s- 
heart,”  and  in  Munich  one  out  of  every  sixteen  of  the 
hospital  patients  dies  from  this  disorder. 

With  such  facts  as  these  before  us  (and  a great  mass 
[167] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


of  similar  testimony  respecting  conditions  in  Germany 
is  at  hand  and  could  be  presented,  if  necessary"),  it  is 
surely  foolish  to  claim  that  drinking  beer  is  the  remedy 
for  the  evils  of  intemperance.  The  proposed  “cure” 
has  been  extensively  tried  in  many  nations  and  the 
results  are  everywhere  disastrous. 

The  fact  that  drinking  tea  and  coffee  has  done  much 
to  lessen  the  use  of  liquors  is  no  argument  in  favor  of 
trying  to  cure  intemperance  by  a larger  use  of  beer. 
And  yet  this  argument  is  sometimes  presented  by  earnest 
people!  There  is  here  no  fair  analogy,  because  they  are 
not  alcoholic  as  beer  is.  In  the  recent  experiments 
made  in  great  industrial  plants  in  Germany  good  results 
have  been  secured,  not  by  increasing  the  beer  consump- 
tion of  the  workmen,  but  by  substituting  tea,  coffee, 
milk,  and  water,  for  malt  and  spirituous  liquors. 

The  question  whether  alcohol,  more 
a FoVd  °°  especially  in  the  form  of  beer,  is  a real  food, 
has  been  hotly  debated  by  physiologists 
for  some  time.  A few  years  ago,  equally  eminent 
scientists  could  be  quoted  on  both  sides  of  the  contro- 
versy. Confusion  arose  for  a time  chiefly  over  the 
definition  of  what  constitutes  a true,  genuine  food. 
But  the  true  character  of  a food  is  now  admitted  to 
embrace  at  least  three  elements:  It  must  build  tissue, 
furnish  heat,  and  provide  energ3%  without  doing  injury 
to  any  'part  of  the  body.  It  is  now  universally  admitted 
that  alcohol,  in  small  or  large  quantities,  never  builds 
tissue:  instead  it  is  a cell-poison.  It  is  needless  to  quote 
authorities  upon  this  point,  because  they  all  agree. 
As  we  are  compelled  to  abandon  the  old  notion  that 
aleohol  is  a stimulant  and  regard  it  as  a depressant  and 
paralyzer  (this  being  the  influence  which  makes  people 
feel  that  it  rests  them  whereas  it  simply  benumbs 
them),  it  is  clear  that  it  does  not  add  any  lasting  ^ntal 

[168] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


force  to  the  body  or  the  mind.  We  have  the  authority 
of  two  of  America’s  leading  scientists  in  this  depart- 
ment, to  this  effect:  “Moderate  amounts  of  alcohol 
(as  in  beer)  taken  with  a meal,  effect  a very  considerable 
lowering  of  the  capacity  for  doing  muscular  work.” 
(Prof.  M.  A.  Rosanoff  and  Dr.  A.  J.  Rosanoff,  McClure’s 
Magazine,  March,  1909). 

But  the  advocates  of  the  food  value  of  alcohol  center 
their  claim  upon  the  fact  that,  when  taken,  a certain 
amount  is  burned,  or  oxidized,  in  the  body,  and  so 
furnishes  heat  and  acts  as  a food.  In  reply  to  this 
contention,  some  vital  objections  arise:  (1)  The  amount 
of  heat  so  added  to  the  body  is  very  small.  (2)  By 
sending  the  blood  to  the  surface  much  more  heat  is 
lost  through  the  skin  than  is  gained  by  the  oxidation, 
which  explains  why  alcohol  is  harmful  during  exposure 
to  intense  cold.  (3)  Its  disintegration  of  the  cells,  its 
action  as  a poison,  more  than  counterbalances  the  gain 
from  oxidation,  and  this  fact  takes  it  out  of  the  class 
of  true  foods. 

A few  testimonies  may  here  be  set  dowm. 
^Po^son*  Prof.  Max  Kassowitz  (died,  1913)  of  Vienna, 
a distinguished  scientist,  makes  this  state- 
ment: “Alcohol  is  neither  a good  nor  a bad  nutritive 
substance,  but  a poison  attacking  and  destroying 
protoplasm.”  After  an  exhaustive  investigation  Prof. 
Dubois  and  Dr.  Schnyder  of  Berne,  Switzerland, 
united  in  making  this  declaration:  “The  widespread 
notion  that  moderate  drinking  (even  of  light  liquors) 
with  meals  helps  the  laborer  to  do  his  work  is  false.” 

Prof.  W.  O.  Atwater,  who  said  all  that  can  be  said 
in  favor  of  the  food-value  of  alcohol,  used  these  words 
at  the  conclusion  of  his  discussion:  “It  is  to  be  remem- 
bered furthermore  that  the  occasions  when  alcohol 
renders  a necessary  service  as  food  are  exceptional.  At 

[169] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


best,  it  is  a very  expensive  source  of  nutriment.  For 
people  in  health  it  is  unnecessary.”  (Physiological 
Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem,  vol.  II,  p.  343,  1903). 

In  this  connection,  while  discussing  the  food-value 
of  beer,  it  is  only  necessary  to  add  the  testimony  of  an 
eminent  expert.  Dr.  A.  Holitscher  of  Karlsbad,  who  com- 
pletely covers  the  ground  and  fairly  smnmarizes  the 
conclusions  of  science: — “Beer  is  not  a food;  and  it  is  a 
conscious  or  unconscious  deception  of  the  public  to 
assert  that  it  is.  Beer  contains,  it  is  true,  besides  the 
alcohol  and  extract,  a quantity  of  food  material  which 
the  body  can  utilize.  Should  it  not,  therefore,  be 
called  a food?  No!  Other  absolutely  injurious, 
unusable,  and  poisonous  material  like  glycerine,  fusil 
oil,  chloroform,  or  ether  are  burned  in  the  body  and  their 
units  can  be  estimated;  but  no  one  has  thought  of 
calling  them  foods.” 

There  is  much  respecting  the  action  of 
of^Ar^icT^  alcohol  upou  the  human  body  which  is 
Explorers  complicated  and  difficult  to  describe,  ex- 
cept in  the  technical  language  of  science. 
But  a few  facts  of  common  experience  clearly  show 
that  it  is  not,  as  just  stated,  a true  food.  For  instance: 
If  a food,  why  are  athletes  forbidden  to  use  it?  If  a 
food,  why  have  modern  armies  endured  severe  cam- 
paigns far  better  when  using  no  liquors?  If  a food, 
why  do  Arctic  explorers  avoid  using  it?  Listen  to  the 
testimony  of  one  of  the  greatest  of  them.  Fridtjof 
Nansen  gives  this  remarkable  testimony  respecting 
alcohol,  and  he  is  surely  a competent  witness: 

“My  experience  leads  me  to  take  a decided  stand  against  the  use 
of  stimulants  and  narcotics  of  all  kinds.  It  must  be  a soimd  princi- 
ple at  all  times  that  one  should  live  in  as  simple  a way  as  possible; 
and  especially  must  this  be  the  case  when  the  life  is  the  life  of  severe 
exertion  in  an  extremely  cold  climate.  It  is  often  supposed  that, 

[170] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


even  though  spirits  are  not  intended  for  daily  juse,  they  ought  to  be 
taken  on  an  expedition,  for  medical  purposes.  I would  readily  ac- 
knowledge this  if  any  one  would  show  me  a single  case  in  which  such 
a remedy  was  necessary;  but  till  this  is  done  I shall  maintain  that  the 
pretext  is  not  sufficient,  and  that  the  best  course  is  to  abolish  alco- 
holic drinks  from  the  list  of  necessaries  of  an  Arctic  expedition.”  In 
like  manner  Capt.  Roald  Amundsen  in  describing  his  great  dash  to 
the  South  Pole  said  to  a reporter  on  March  11,  1912:  “Alcohol  of 
every  kind  was  absolutely  barred  on  the  journey.” 

Lord  Beaconsfield  many  years  ago  called  beer  “liquid 
bread:”  a felicitous  but  false  characterization,  which 
the  Liquor  Interest,  both  makers  and  users,  have 
ardently  and  continuously  proclaimed  from  the  house- 
tops. They  skillfully  use  all  possible  means  to  perpet- 
uate these  erroneous  beliefs  about  liquors. 

Some  three  years  ago  an  agent  of  the 
manufacturer  of  a celebrated  ale  stated 
Advertisement  in  an  advertisement  in  a leading  London 
paper:  “When  a man  drinks  good  beer, 
he  eats  and  drinks  at  the  same  time.  A glass  of  good 
beer  is  as  nourishing  as  a glass  of  new  milk.”  When 
asked  by  a prominent  scientist  to  give  his  authority 
for  such  a statement,  the  brewer’s  agent  referred  him 
to  the  report  of  a certain  Commission  (the  names  of  its 
members  he  would  not  give!),  wherein  it  is  stated,  not 
that  beer  has  the  same  food  value  as  milk,  but  that  a 
quart  of  beer  is  equivalent  in  its  calorimetric  (or  heat- 
giving) value  to  nearly  a quarter  of  a pound  of  bread! 
That  is,  according  to  the  Commission  (which  the 
brewer’s  agent  misquoted!),  ten  cents’  worth  of  beer  is 
equal  in  heat  producing  efficiency  to  about  two  cents’ 
worth  of  bread!  But  this  is  not  food- value,  because 
the  heat  so  produced  in  the  body  is  offset  by  the  larger 
loss  of  heat  through  the  cooling  of  the  blood  sent  by 
the  alcohol  to  the  surface  of  the  body.  In  other  words, 

[171] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  brewer’s  agent  falsified  his  authority;  made  a state- 
ment which  deceived  the  public;  while  he  refused  to 
give  the  names  of  the  persons  behind  the  report  which 
he  misquoted  and  misused!  Characteristic  of  the 
“Trade!”  In  like  manner  in  1907,  the  Pabst  Brewing 
Co.  of  Milwaukee  put  into  numberless  newspapers  an 
advertisement,  stating:  “The  U.  S.  Department  of  Agri- 
culture officially  declares  that  beer  is  the  purest  and 
best  of  all  foods  and  drinks.”  The  Department  at 
Washington  at  once  branded  the  statement  as  false! 
(See  Warner,  Social  Welfare  and  the  Liquor  Problem, 
p.  51.  1909). 

An  illustration,  on  a large  scale,  of  the  control  which 
the  Liquor  Interest  exert  over  the  organs  of  public 
opinion,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  when  a temperance 
league  in  Germany  sent  copies  of  Emperor  William’s 
address,  made  at  Miirvik  (1910),  to  2,400  newspapers, 
less  than  350  used  it  in  any  form,  while  many  of  these 
cast  suspicion  on  its  genuineness  and  others  changed  its 
meaning!  All  this  in  “free”  Germany!  (See  Gordon, 
Anti-Alcohol  Movement  in  Europe  (1913),  Chapter  VIII, 
for  a remarkable  story  of  the  Tj'ranny  of  Drink). 


To  make  this  matter  of  the  food-value 
Chemical  of  beer  a little  clearer,  let  us  place  side  by 
Comparison  chief  chemical  elements  in  the 

of  Beer  and  • i.  i i i i c 

Milk  same  quantity  of  standard  beer  and  of  new 

milk  in  proportional  figures: 

Beer  Milk 

Alcohol 5.17  none 

Fat None  3.72 


Nitrogenous  compounds 23  3.31 

Carbohydrates 4.58  4.90 

This  comparison  completely  sets  aside  the  popular 
impression  that  beer  has  any  real  food  value,  as  it  is 

[172] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


wholly  lacking  in  fat;  almost  totally  devoid  of  nitroge- 
nous elements;  its  carbohydrates,  while  nearly  equal 
in  amount,  are  not  in  wholesome  food  compounds; 
and  moreover,  its  alcohol  both  injures  cell  and  tissue, 
and  at  the  same  time  drives  out  of  the  body  more  heat 
than  it  adds. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  may  be  put  in  a 
few  words.  (1)  Even  at  the  best,  beer  is  an  extrava- 
gantly costly  food:  One  loaf  of  bread  contains  more 
real  “food- value”  than  a row  of  beer  mugs  a yard  long. 
(2)  It  contains  enough  alcohol  to  injure  the  tissues  and 
organs  of  the  body.  (3)  It  is  a habit-forming  drink, 
which  weakens  the  will  and  frequently  leads  to  exces- 
sive indulgence.  (4)  It  is  associated  in  its  common 
use,  with  innumerable  social  and  political  evils  to  which 
a good  citizen  should  not  give  encouragement.  (5) 
The  appeal  to  the  facts  of  wide  experience  in  various 
nations  proves  that  beer  does  not  drive  out  the  heavier 
liquors  or  remove  the  evils  of  intemperance. 

We  are  often  told  that  the  panacea  for 
the  gigantic  evils  of  the  modern  saloon. 
Saloon  which  even  the  users  of  liquors  acknowledge, 

is  some  “substitute,”  where  men  may  find 
the  social  warmth  and  comradeship  that  they  crave. 
Two  false  assumptions  underlie  all  efforts  to  cure  the 
evils  of  intemperance  by  simply  providing  substitutes 
for  the  saloon:  (1)  It  is  assumed  that  the  Drink  Habit 
is  largely  due  to  appetite;  or,  (2)  That  people  generally 
resort  to  the  saloon,  not  so  much  to  satisfy  their  appe- 
tite, but  rather  to  enjoy  the  sociability  there  provided. 
Therefore,  it  is  argued,  a substitute  which  supplies  the 
sociability  and  diverts  the  appetite  will  solve  the  prob- 
lem. Undoubtedly  both  appetite  and  the  craving  for 
sociability  do  much  to  sustain  the  saloon,  especially 
with  the  young  and  the  homeless.  The  glitter  and  glam- 

[173] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


our,  the  excitement  and  hilarity  of  some  drinking  places, 
powerfully  attract  the  thoughtless  and  the  lonesome. 
But  in  proportion  to  the  total  amount  of  drinking  done 
these  faetors  play  a subordinate  part. 

The  chief  thing  to  do,  in  fighting  the  Drink  Curse, 
is  not  simply  to  provide  substitutes  for  the  saloon, 
but  to  destroy  the  superstition  that  creates  the  saloon, 
and  then  to  destroy  by  law  the  organized  greed  which 
finds  expression  in  the  saloon.  At  a recent  Pubhc 
Hearing  in  Boston  (1913)  on  the  Drink  Problem,  the 
liquor  men  were  very  urgent  that  more  state  hospitals 
for  inebriates  be  established.  No  wonder!  They  would 
like  to  have  the  products  of  their  business  kept  out  of 
sight  as  much  as  possible!  What  we  need,  however, 
is  not  more  hospitals  to  cure  drunkards,  but  fewer 
saloons.  The  state  must  strike  at  the  roots  of  this  e\Tl, 
not  merely  doetor  the  diseased  branehes! 

The  argument  from  history  is  decisive. 
How  Great  evils  are  outgrown,  not  destroyed  by 

EvU?^^he*  method  of  substitution.  The  bloody 

Argument  arcnain  the  old  Roman  dayswas  notbrought 
from  History  to  an  end  by  tame  games  vdth  gentlemanly 
conduct.  They  ceased  because  the  Church 
filled  the  breasts  of  the  people  with  a radically  differ- 
ent ideal  and  spirit  of  life.  The  practice  of  duelling 
did  not  cease  through  the  substitution  of  less  dangerous 
weapons.  It  stopped  only  when  men  came  to  realize 
how  utterly  senseless  the  old  “code  of  honor”  was. 
The  practice  faded  when  the  matters  of  “honor” 
began  to  seem  silly.  The  same  may  be  said  of  gambhng. 
This  vice  has  been  lessened,  not  by  substituting  worth- 
less “chips”  for  real  money,  but  by  the  growth  of  a 
new  sentiment.  Low  forms  of  pleasure  do  not  cease 
by  any  mechanical  substitution  of  similar  forms  shorn 
of  ancient  evils,  but  by  lifting  the  level  of  life:  and, 

[174] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


when  lifted  to  that  higher  level,  men  will  easily  and 
spontaneously  provide  the  appropriate  higher  satis- 
factions. 

The  man  who  believes  that  alcohol  is  a supreme 
necessity,  because  a life-giver,  will  not  frequent  any 
substitute  for  the  saloon  where  “soft  drinks”  are  prac- 
tically given  away.  They  are  not  what  he  wants. 
The  place  may  be  brighter  and  the  music  better,  but 
what  he  feels  that  he  must  have  is  not  there,  and  there- 
fore he  will  never  enter.  But  destroy  the  superstition 
in  his  mind  that  alcohol  is  a life-giver, — show  him  the 
life  insurance  tables,  the  facts  respecting  athletic 
contests,  the  graphic  diagrams  that  illustrate  the  in- 
crease of  accidents  and  diseases  and  the  decrease  of 
mental  and  muscular  efficiency  due  to  the  use  of  liquor; 
also  the  miscroscopic  slides  that  reveal  the  havoc 
wrought  in  the  tissues  of  the  stomach,  liver,  and  kid- 
ney by  the  so-called  moderate  drinking;  and  lastly, 
the  injury  to  children, — a veritable  “slaughter  of  the 
innocents,” — all  kinds  of  defects  of  body  and  mind  and 
thousands  of  early  deaths  due  to  parental  indulgence, 
— then,  if  any  manhood  is  left  and  he  can  be  moved, 
the  saloon  will  be  abandoned.  He  will  conquer  the 
habit,  not  by  way  of  a substitute,  but  by  the  surer  path 
of  intelligence  and  conscience.  And  in  that  path  new 
and  higher  social  satisfactions  will  spring  up. 

What,  then,  is  the  open  way  forward.'’ 
A Campaign  A Campaign  of  education,  in  the  widest  and 
most  authoritative  manner:  by  pulpit  and 
Permanent  platform,  by  press  and  school.  But  are 
Remedy  statutes  useless.f*  No!  They  are  needed  to 
curb  the  Liquor  Interests  which  are  im- 
mense and  corrupt;  and  also  to  remove  the  oppor- 
tunities of  drinking:  the  fewer  the  better,  and  none 
wherever  public  sentiment  can  be  made  effective 

[175] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


against  the  open  saloon.  But  above  all  we  must  edu- 
cate, widely  and  constantly. 

Is  moral  suasion  useless?  No!  The  more  the  better. 
But  moral  sentiment  needs  scientific  fact  as  powder,  to 
be  effective,  must  have  the  bullet  to  propel.  To  feel 
constructively  and  creatively  men  must  see  the  truth 
clearly.  To  the  enthusiasm  of  the  reformer  we  must 
add  the  revelation  of  the  laboratory  and  the  test  of 
the  workshop.  Therefore,  we  must  educate  all  classes 
by  every  possible  method. 

Shall  we  cease  to  establish  counter  attractions  in 
order  to  divert  the  masses  from  the  saloon?  No, 
indeed!  Open  up  in  slum  districts  beside  every  bar- 
room (wherever  we  cannot  destroy  it)  a more  attractive 
resort  and  organize  as  many  effective  influences  in 
that  direction  as  possible.  Some  will  be  helped  in 
this  way.  But  let  us  not  call  these  resorts  substitutes 
for  the  saloon;  the  name  implies  false  philosophy  and 
raises  false  expectations.  Moreover,  it  is  not  in  this 
way  that  the  solitary  drinker,  the  home  drinlcer,  or  the 
banquet  drinker  can  be  reached,  and  they  are  legion; 
nor  can  the  young  in  this  way  be  prevented  from  con- 
tracting the  Drink  Habit,  a matter  of  supreme  impor- 
tance. 

Our  chief  hope  is  here:  We  must  educate!  We  must 
make  the  fact  that  alcohol  is  a life-destroyer  the  master 
conviction  of  every  young  life.  We  must  also  show  the 
thoughtless  moderate  drinker  his  real  danger  and  appeal 
to  his  Christian  chivalry  and  civic  responsibility. 

The  saloon  is  sometimes  called  the  “poor 
a^the^oor  Dian’s  club.”  A Very  appropriate  descrip- 
Man’s  Club!  tion ! It  makes  everj'one  entering  it  poorer 
in  all  his  relations  of  life:  poorer  in  purse 
and  personality;  a poorer  husband,  a poorer  father,  a 
[176] 


THE  CURE  THAT  KILLS 


poorer  son,  a poorer  workman,  a poorer  citizen.  He 
never  brings  out  as  much  as  he  carries  into  the  saloon, 
but  the  loss  from  his  pocket  book  is  the  smallest  of  his 
losses.  Somewhere  in  his  brain  a cell  paralyzed,  which 
means  that  his  mind  has  lost  a needed  tool;  somewhere 
in  his  blood-current  a white  corpuscle  killed,  which 
means  that  a defender  against  disease  has  been  de- 
stroyed; somewhere  among  his  heart-strings  a mystic 
cord  broken,  which  means  that  when  its  day  of  stress 
shall  come,  it  will  cease  to  beat. 

A “poor  man’s  club,”  indeed!  That  is  what  the 
railroad  superintendent,  the  merchant,  the  insurance 
manager,  the  captain  of  industry  tell  the  young  man  who 
stands  in  its  door.  What  comes  out  ? Go  ask  the  police- 
man, the  doctor,  the  keepers  of  asylums  and  almshouses ! 
What  comes  out?  Go  ask  the  children  who  cry  for 
bread,  the  wife  who  toils,  the  mother  who  mourns! 
The  “poor”  man’s  club?  Yes,  very  poor/  Out  of  the 
1,000  saloons  in  Boston  came  last  year  50,000  men  so 
drunk  that  the  police  had  to  arrest  them!  What  if 
every  Sunday  night  the  police  had  to  arrest  1,000  per- 
sons coming  out  of  the  churches  of  the  city,  having 
been  made  crazy  by  the  services  held  there?  How 
long  would  such  a state  of  affairs  be  tolerated?  Surely, 
a very  poor  club!  There  men  are  organized  to  make 
politics  unclean.  There  the  demagogue  has  his  throne 
and  plots  to  break  good  laws  and  to  make  bad  laws. 
There  immigrants  are  taught  that  plunder  is  patriotism. 
There  proceeds  daily  and  nightly  the  unmaking  of  the 
American  citizen. 

All  true  clubs  exist  for  educational,  social,  or  benevo- 
lent purposes.  The  saloon  associates  men,  not  on 
spiritual,  but  on  animal  levels,  serving  no  noble  human 
need,  but  gratifying  mere  appetite  and  providing  low 
[177] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


pleasures.  It  abounds  in  rninous  temptations,  not 
in  wholesome  amusements.  It  distributes  no  alms, 
but  sends  out  many  to  beg  or  to  steal.  It  produces 
nothing  but  want;  it  consumes  everything  that  enters 
into  manhood.  In  it  works  one  purpose:  Here  greed 
takes  advantage  of  human  weakness  to  coin  fortunes 
out  of  tears  and  woes! 


[178] 


“When  public  sentiment  demands  it,  liquor  laws  can  be  enforced 
as  well  as  any  other  laws.”  Samuel  J.  Barrows.  1908.  Late  Pres- 
ident of  the  International  Prison  Commission. 

“Nothing  more  morally  insane  can  be  imagined  than  that  Law,  the 
protector  of  society,  should  be  used  for  the  setting  up  and  fortification 
of  a traffic  by  which  society  is  oppressed  and  demoralized;  a traffic  by 
which  all  the  forces  of  education  are  clogged,  and  all  the  forces  of  vice 
and  violence  strengthened.  It  is  lamentably  true  that  a large  pro- 
portion of  our  people  support  the  Liquor  Traffic  at  the  expense  of  their 
health,  homes,  and  all  that  should  be  dear  to  them;  but  it  is  also  true 
that  they  are  tempted  to  this  by  that  perversion  of  the  Law  which 
plants  the  drinkshop  in  every  place,  and  does  it  most  plentifully  in 
the  poorest  and  most  wretched  localities.  The  people  are  to  blame  for 
falling  into  evil,  but  more  to  blame  are  those  who  put  the  stone  of 
stumbling  in  their  way,  or  wLo  do  nothing  to  remove  the  stumbling 
block  from  their  path.”  Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson,  M.  P.  Address  given 
at  Leeds,  England,  Oct.  23,  1905. 

“Prohibition  has  attacked  the  evil  at  its  source,  and  the  results 
which  the  enforcement  of  this  law  brought  about  serve  to  indicate 
to  what  extent  evils,  that  the  South  have  accepted  as  human  and 
inevitable,  can  be  modified  and  cured,  if  proper  measures  are  taken 
and  these  measures  are  backed  by  the  will  of  the  people.”  Booker  T. 
Washington.  The  Outlook:  March  14,  1908. 

“ If  it  [the  state]  lays  either  a regulating,  a restraining,  or  a prohib- 
iting hand  upon  the  traflSc  in  intoxicants,  it  does  no  differently  from 
what  it  does  in  regard  to  adulterated  meat,  unwholesome  meat, 
dangerous  explosives,  fireworks,  obscene  publications,  lottery  tickets, 
and  numerous  other  subjects  of  sale.”  Judge  Robert  C.  Pitman, 
Alcohol  and  the  State,  p.  92.  1877. 


[180] 


w 


Effect  of  Alcohol  on  Combined  Head  and  Hand  Work 

Type-setting 

Experiments  made  on  4 Printers  on  4 consecutive  days. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 

Law  is  the  orderly  application  of  public  sentiment 
to  human  life,  individual  and  corporate.  Without 
the  machinery  of  law  public  opinion  would  often  be 
ineffective  or  would  act  fitfully  and  ruinously  by  way 
of  mob  rule.  On  the  other  hand,  if  statutes  are  not 
backed  by  the  general  convictions  of  the  people,  they 
become  a dead  letter.  And  laws  generally  ignored  are 
harmful  to  society,  bringing  government  into  contempt. 
These  are  certainly  self-evident  propositions  obvious  to 
all  men. 

But  in  this  connection,  a few  important  considera- 
tions need  to  be  noted: 

(1)  While  statutes  ought  not  to  be  too  far  in  advance 
of  public  opinion,  still  the  law  has  a powerful  educating 
influence,  so  that  law  makers  may  well  represent  the 
higher  ideals  of  mankind.  They  should  be  leaders 
going  ahead,  but  not  mere  pickets  too  far  in  advance  of 
the  main  army.  The  so-called  Sherman  Law,  regu- 
lating interstate  commerce,  illustrates  the  principle 
here  stated.  When  enacted,  it  expressed,  not  the 
general  views  of  shippers,  much  less  those  of  railroad 
managers,  but  the  moral  ideals  of  a comparatively 
small  number  of  reformers.  But  it  has  served  in  less 
than  a score  of  years  to  bring  the  public  as  a whole  to 
its  point  of  view. 

(2)  A statute  is  not  a failure  simply  because  it  is  not 
always  obeyed.  Laws  and  customs  opposed  to  theft, 

[181] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


arson,  and  murder  have  never,  even  in  the  most  ad- 
vanced civihzation,  put  an  end  to  these  crimes.  The 
general  principle  to  be  followed  is  ob\'iously  this : 
Does  the  law,  on  the  whole,  restrain  men  from  com- 
mitting criminal  acts,  and,  to  a reasonable  extent 
afford  protection  to  society.?'  Is  the  welfare  of  mankind 
promoted  by  such  a law.?'  The  point  is;  Not  whether 
all  criminal  acts  are  prevented,  but : Is  the  community 
safer  because  there  is  such  a law.?* 

(3)  It  is  often  objected  that  all  prohibitive  laws 
naturally  incite  men  to  disobedience.  People  fre- 
quently declare:  “When  you  tell  me  not  to  do  a 
certain  thing,  ;^ou  really  encourage  me  to  do  that  very 
thing.”  It  is  likewise  argued  that  restrictive  hquor 
laws  promote  intemperance.  To  tell  a man  that  he 
must  not  drink  is  to  encourage  him  to  get  drunk.  It 
requires  but  little  thought  to  see  the  fallacy  of  this 
contention.  The  recently  enacted  laws  against  spitting 
in  public  places,  may  have  prompted  a few  wilful 
persons  to  act  upon  this  theory.  But  how  quickly 
the  general  public  has  fallen  into  hne  with  the  sanitary 
regulation.  In  thousands  of  cases  today,  men  are 
ceasing  to  drink  because  the  doctor  prohibited  liquor. 
The  physician’s  command,  “You  must  not  drink,” 
does  not  tempt  the  patient  to  drink  twice  as  often. 
A restrictive  statute  does  not  prompt  men  to  gamble. 
The  same  principle  applies  to  liquor  laws.  Here  and 
there  a foolish  man  may  consider  it  a cunning  trick  to 
do  what  the  state  forbids.  But  such  cases  are  rare. 

(4)  Sympathizers  with  the  Liquor  Interests  often 
condemn  temperance  legislation  because  all  such  laws 
are  merely  negative  'prohibitions.  We  are  told  that 
they  are  worse  than  useless,  because  they  add  nothing 
to  the  real  life  of  the  community.  But  these  critics 
forget  that  the  majority  of  laws,  from  the  very  nature 

[182] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


of  the  case,  are  prohibitive.  Nearly  all  of  the  Ten 
Commandments  are  prohibitions,  but  the  Decalogue 
has  not  been  a failure.  A majority  of  the  statutes 
passed  by  every  legislature  practically  take  the  form: 
Thou  shalt  not  do  this  and  that.  A prohibition  law, 
liquor  or  otherwise,  is  not  merely  a barren  negation. 
It  is  obviously  putting  some  mighty  conviction  into 
the  form  of  law  in  order  to  make  it  effective.  In  the 
case  of  temperance,  it  is  the  conviction  that  abstinence 
is  better  than  drinking.  The  best  life  of  the  community 
thus  comes  to  organic  expression.  And  every  effort 
to  enforce  the  law  is  educational. 

(5)  More  common  than  any  other  fallacy  in  this 
connection  is  the  erroneous  belief  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  make  men  moral  by  legislation.  But  what  else 
is  the  object  of  legislation  in  general?  Does  not  the 
state  exist  to  promote  civilization,  and  is  not  the  aim 
of  civilization  morality?  Evidently,  the  state  cannot 
in  any  mechanical  way  transform  sinners  into  saints. 
But  what  is  true  of  education,  health,  and  business,  is 
also  true  of  temperance.  School  laws  help  to  make 
the  people  wise  by  providing  means  of  instruction. 
Sanitary  laws  promote  the  public  health.  Wise  trade 
laws  help  to  make  the  market  place  honorable.  In 
many  ways,  good  laws  tend  to  make  the  people  good. 
So  too,  effective  temperance  legislation  helps  mightily 
to  make  men  sober.  And  being  sober,  they  become 
more  moral.  This  surely  is  the  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter:  While  morality  cannot  be  enacted 
and  put  by  statute  into  the  hearts  of  the  people  any 
more  than  health  into  diseased  bodies  by  legislative 
act,  yet  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  provide  men  with 
an  environment  free  from  moral  taint  and  conducive 
to  moral  growth,  as  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  insure 
sanitary  conditions  to  human  society. 

[183] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


When  Gladstone,  in  1860,  introduced 
lUnsUaUoL  trade  in  wine  with  the  purpose  of  driv- 

ing out  heavy  beer  through  the  free  issue  of 
so-called  grocers’  licenses,  the  immediate  increase  in 
drunkenness,  and  crimes  due  to  Drink,  showed  clearly 
how  people  may  be  made  immoral  by  law.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  world  is  full  of  impressive  illustrations 
of  this  fact:  That,  decreasing  the  number  of  saloons 
in  a given  locality,  shortening  the  hours  that  they  are 
open,  restricting  the  business  by  stringent  supervision, 
and  especially  by  abolishing  it  altogether,  the  morahty 
of  a community  is  improved.  The  act  of  1906,  closing 
dramshops  one  hour  earlier  on  Saturdays  and  two  hours 
earlier  on  Sundays,  led  in  four  years  to  a decrease  of 
38  per  cent,  in  the  cases  of  drunkenness  in  the  five 
Irish  cities:  Dublin,  Belfast,  Cork,  Limerick,  and 
Waterford.  Sunday  closing  in  Glasgow  (1911)  cut 
down  the  arrests  for  drunkenness  to  less  than  one  sixth 
of  the  average  for  the  rest  of  the  week ! 

There  were  20,000  less  drinking  places  in  the  British 
Isles  in  1910  than  in  1891.  During  the  same  period 
arrests  for  drunkenness  decreased  some  30  per  cent. — 
not  all  due  to  the  smaller  number  of  bars,  but  certainly 
this  was  the  chief  cause.  The  diminution  of  crimes  in 
our  own  American  States,  after  a trial  of  restrictive 
laws  for  five  years,  has  been  decisive.  The  increase, 
in  some  cases,  in  petty  crimes,  has  been  due  to  the  fact 
that  drunkenness  and  illegal  selling  of  liquor,  prexdously 
largely  ignored,  are  given  more  attention  under  the 
new  conditions.  The  actual  crime  in  the  community 
decreases  though  these  petty  offences  may,  for  a time, 
increase. 

In  that  interesting  little  book.  On  Liberty 
(1859),  by  John  Stuart  Mill,  many  state- 
ments are  made  respecting  the  foolishness 

[184] 


Question 
of  Liberty 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


of  sumptuary  laws,  which  have  in  our  day  been  widely 
used  by  the  Liquor  Interests  to  discourage  all  temper- 
ance legislation.  Herbert  Spencer  held  similar  views. 
But  a very  little  consideration  will  show  the  error  of 
these  contentions.  Two  main  points  need  emphasis: 
First,  the  sumptuary  laws  to  which  Mill,  as  a rule, 
referred  are  mere  trivialities  in  comparison  with  the 
problem  of  Drink.  While  unwise  to  interfere  by 
statute  overmuch  with  the  petty  details  of  human 
conduct,  nevertheless,  when  the  very  life  of  the  race  is 
at  stake, — the  welfare  of  home,  church,  and  school; 
when  the  ravages  of  disease,  the  miseries  of  women  and 
children;  the  multiplication  of  pauper,  criminal,  and 
lunatic;  the  corruption  of  politics  and  the  nullification 
of  laws  are  involved, — obviously  these  immense  and 
vital  interests  must  not  be  classed  with  trivial  sumptuary 
laws! 

The  state  not  only  has  the  right;  it  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  protect  its  own  life.  Even  so  extreme  an  indi- 
vidualist as  President  Emeritus  Charles  W.  Eliot  of 
Harvard  University,  has  nobly  expressed  himself  on 
this  point  (Address  before  No-License  Workers,  Boston, 
Oct.  29,  1908) : 

“There  are  many  subjeets  today  concerning  whieh  we  must  ask 
that  question — the  justification  of  interference  with  personal  liberty. 
I gradually  discovered  that  justification  in  the  experience  of  Cam- 
bridge under  a No  License  system.  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  the 
elear  colleetive  good  obtained  by  excluding  the  saloons  from  Cam- 
bridge justified  the  abridgment  of  the  individual’s  liberty,  particularly 
when  that  liberty  was  a liberty  to  use  for  pleasure  something  that 

was  unwholesome When  I see  a great  collective  good 

aceomplished  at  the  expense  of  the  loss  of  a trifling  or  unwholesome 
bit  of  liberty,  I am  reconciled  to  that  amount  of  interference  with 
liberty.” 


[ 185  ]. 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


The  arguments  used  by  the  advocates  of  the  personal 
liberty  to  drink  liquor  (a  love  of  liberty  that  is  mainly 
only  the  love  of  greed)  would  be  ludicrous  were  not  the 
situation  so  sad.  As  these  pages  are  being  written 
(1913),  the  liquor  men  in  Chicago  are  trying  to  drive 
the  women  voters  into  their  camp  on  the  plea  that,  if 
liberty  to  drink  is  now  denied,  the  next  step  will  be  to 
deny  the  liberty  to  eat  ice-cream!  How  indescribably 
silly!  For,  if  ice-cream  killed  one  tenth  as  many  as 
beer  and  whisky,  how  soon  it  would  be  abohshed! 
The  women  of  Illinois  rebuked  this  foolishness  by  voting 
at  the  recent  election  (Nov.,  1913), /owr  out  of  five  for 
no-license! 

In  the  second  place:  In  the  recent  and  rapid  evolu- 
tion of  human  society,  it  has  been  found  wise  and 
necessary  for  the  state  to  undertake  many  things  which 
seemed  to  John  Stuart  IVIill  like  vicious  policies. 
Human  conditions  have,  in  some  important  respects, 
radically  changed  since  his  day.  We  interfere  with 
personal  liberty  along  the  lines  of  Public  Hygiene  to  an 
extent  which  probably  would  have  seemed  despotic 
to  the  great  apostle  of  extreme  individualism.  But 
this  is  clearly  justifiable  and  for  the  real  good  of  the 
individual  himself.  This  policy  is  not  the  abridgment 
of  any  freedom  needful  to  the  indi^^dual,  while  it  is 
needful  for  the  protection  of  the  freedom  of  the  com- 
munity as  a whole.  So,  also,  it  has  been  found  neces- 
sary to  interfere  with  the  liberty  of  the  employer  in 
order  to  protect  laborers  from  the  exactions  of  organized 
greed. 

A glance  at  present  conditions  and  tendencies  shows 
that  numerous  interferences  with  individual  liberty 
are  made  necessary  by  the  very  complexity  of  modern 
society.  But  the  need  arises  more  largely  from  the 
demands  of  the  new  conscience,  growing  out  of  a deep- 

[186] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


ening  consciousness  of  the  unity  of  social  interests; 
and  also,  from  the  expansion  of  human  sympathy.  A 
clearer  moral  sense  demands  that  certain  things  shall 
be  done  to  foster  that  common  good  which  in  no  sense 
limits  individual  welfare. 

And  when  we  come  to  temperance,  we 
Freedom  gnd  another  important  influence  operative: 
^sti^nce  discovery  that  Drinlc  is  a life-destroyer. 

Mill  did  not  understand  or  appreciate  this 
fact:  Science  had  not  then  published  its  revolutionary 
discoveries.  He,  like  many  today,  saw  only  the  evils 
of  drunkenness.  He  did  not  realize  the  menace  to 
civilization  in  the  habit  of  drinking,  all  liquors  being 
life-destroyers.  This  new  light  has  streamed  in  from 
numerous  realms  of  experience  and  investigation.  In 
this  new  light,  the  terrible  curse  of  Drink  stands  revealed 
as  Mill  did  not  see  it;  and  so  clearly  revealed  that  the 
facts  demand  an  interference  with  individual  customs 
for  the  good,  not  only  of  society,  but  of  the  individual 
himself.  Wherever  we  find  a person  opposing  restric- 
tive liquor  laws  in  the  name  of  liberty,  there  we  dis- 
cover an  individual  who  is  totally  ignorant  of  what 
science  has  demonstrated  respecting  alcohol,  or  one 
who  is  engaged  in  the  liquor  business  and  wants  this 
liberty  for  mere  gain. 

Little  attention  need  be  paid  to  the  representatives 
of  the  Liquor  Interests  when  they  indulge  in  loud 
assertions  of  their  “rights.”  That  is  simply  the  old 
cry  of  the  pirate,  the  gambler,  the  slaveholder;  “You 
must  not  interfere  with  my  business,” — no  matter  how 
evil  that  business  may  be.  The  “rights  ” of  the  brewer? 
But  what  about  the  “rights”  of  the  children,  who  are 
robbed  of  a good  inheritance  and  a good  home  because 
the  saloon  exists?  The  “rights”  of  the  distiller?  But 
what  about  the  “rights”  of  the  voter,  who  finds  his 

[187] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


ballot  practically  destroyed  by  the  politieal  gang 
operated  from  the  dramshops?  The  “rights”  of  the 
saloon-keeper?  But  what  about  the  “rights”  of  the 
taxpayer  who  has  to  bear  much  heavier  burdens  on  his 
account? 

Why  so  keen  about  the  “rights”  of  liquor-drinkers, 
and  so  indifferent  to  the  rights  of  the  mother  who 
wants  a clean,  safe  place  in  which  to  rear  her  children? 
Why  so  loud  in  denunciation  of  all  laws  restrictive  of 
the  liquor  business,  and  so  indifferent  to  the  destructive 
restrictions  which  this  business  puts  upon  home,  school 
and  church?  The  representatives  of  the  Liquor  Inter- 
ests are  the  chief  nullifiers  of  all  laws,  who  respect  the 
rights  of  none  and  abolish  the  rights  of  thousands 
(through  them  the  pauper,  the  criminal,  the  sick,  the 
insane  lose  their  real  liberty!),  and  who  purchase  their 
freedom  to  do  evil  by  the  ruin  of  the  souls  and  bodies 
of  mankind.  Why  talk  so  much  about  “restraint  of 
trade,”  and  ignore  the  “restraint  of  virtue”  carried  on 
by  250,000  drinking  places  in  our  land? 

A man  as  keenly  logical  as  INIill,  but  far  more  modern 
in  spirit,  the  late  Professor  Thomas  H.  Green  of  Oxford 
University,  stated  the  truth  of  the  whole  matter  in  these 
words:  “Here,  then,  is  a widespreading  social  evil,  of 
which  society  may,  if  it  will,  by  a restraining  law,  to  a 
great  extent,  rid  itself,  to  the  infinite  enhancement 
of  the  positive  freedom  enjoyed  by  its  members. 
. . . An  effectual  liquor  law,  in  short,  is  the  neces- 

sary complement  of  our  Factory  Acts,  om  Education 
Acts,  our  Public  Health  Acts.” 

Total  abstainers  are  the  true  apostles  and  advocates 
of  “personal  liberty,”  in  its  highest  and  noblest  form; 
friends  of  the  only  freedom  that  is  genuine  and  impor- 
tant. Total  abstinence  from  intoxicating  and  injurious 
liquors  is  the  only  true  realization  and  complete 

[188] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


consummation  of  human  freedom.  We  are  freest  when 
at  our  best,  and  we  are  at  our  best  only  when  sober. 
Science  teaches  us  that  liquor  actually  destroys  man’s 
liberty  in  two  ways:  By  paralyzing  his  higher  life 
(lessening  vigor  of  thought,  will,  and  conscience),  and 
by  deceiving  him,  making  him  believe  that  he  is  stronger 
when  in  fact  he  is  weaker! 

Indulgence  in  what  is  harmful  to  oneself  and  others 
is  an  abridgment  of  liberty.  Those  who  seek  to  redeem 
the  race  from  the  curse  of  Drink  are  the  greatest  eman- 
cipators of  mankind.  Those  who  indulge  in  what 
involves  danger  to  themselves  and  carries  injury  to 
others  are  not  really  free,  however  much  they  may 
boast  of  their  freedom.  Only  those  are  free  who  main- 
tain the  highest  life,  who  subject  appetite  to  reason 
and  conscience,  and  who  respect  the  spiritual  and  per- 
manent welfare  of  others.  To  demand  liberty  that 
one  may  maintain  a business  whose  profits  mean  the 
ruin  of  innumerable  lives,  is  little  less  than  blasphemy. 

The  sacred  principle  of  liberty  confers 
Evils  on  no  man  the  right  to  coin  money  out  of 

the  degradation  of  manhood,  the  suffering 
of  womanhood,  and  the  privation  of  child- 
hood. The  greatest  friends  of  “personal  liberty”  are 
those  who  protect  and  maintain  their  own  spiritual 
independence  and  seek  to  keep  others  in  the  path  of 
sobriety.  To  walk  in  the  way  that  leads  to  drunken- 
ness is  bondage;  to  push  others  into  that  highway  of 
ruin,  for  the  sake  of  lucre,  is  criminality.  Social  evils 
have  no  inherent  rights.  Destructive  vices  have  no 
sacred  privileges.  Freedom  grants  no  man  permission 
to  injure  himself  or  his  neighbor.  As  a writer  in  a 
recent  issue  of  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical 
Association  so  well  puts  the  case:  “The  world  is 
[189] 


have  no 
“Rights” 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


moving.  The  old  fetish  of  ‘personal  liberty,’  at  what- 
ever cost  of  danger  to  the  public  at  large,  seems  to  be 
losing  its  power.  ” 

The  principle  here  set  forth  has  the  en- 
Supreme”*  dorsemcnt  of  the  highest  judicial  authority 
Court  in  our  land,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 

United  States.  The  language  of  its  notable 
decision  is  emphatic:  “By  the  general  concurrence  of 
opinion  of  every  civilized  and  Christian  commimity, 
there  are  few  sources  of  crime  and  misery  equal  to  the 
dram  shop.  . . . The  statistics  of  every  state  show 

a greater  amount  of  crime  and  misery  attributable  to 
the  use  of  ardent  spirits  obtained  at  these  retail  liquor 
saloons  than  to  any  other  source.  . . . The  police 

power  of  the  state  is  fully  competent  to  regulate  the 
business — to  mitigate  its  evils  or  to  suppress  it  alto- 
gether. There  is  no  inherent  right  in  a citizen  to  thus 
sell  intoxicating  liquor  by  retail;  it  is  not  a privilege  of 
a citizen  of  the  state  or  of  a citizen  of  the  United  States.” 
Crowley  vs.  Christensen,  137  U.  S.  91.  In  vnew  of  this 
clear  and  explicit  language  of  our  highest  tribunal,  it 
is  exceedingly  absurd  for  any  one  to  continue  to  talk  of 
his  “sacred  right”  to  sell  or  drink  liquor.  At  another 
time  the  same  court  used  this  language:  “No  legis- 
lature can  bargain  away  the  public  health  or  the  public 
morals.  The  people  themselves  cannot  do  it,  much 
less  their  servants.  Government  is  organized  with  a 
Anew  to  their  preservation,  and  cannot  divest  itself 
of  the  power  to  provide  for  them.” 

The  gains  for  temperance  secured  recently 
Hopeful  court  and  legislature,  are,  however,  far 

Statutes  and  , T,  . 

Decisions  more  than  prohibitory  statutes,  repressive 
measures  against  the  saloon,  and  the  sub- 
jection of  drunkards  to  police  regulations.  They  are 
too  numerous  to  catalogue  here,  but  a few  of  the  various 

[190] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


directions  which  legislative  acts  and  judicial  decisions 
have  taken  may  well  be  briefly  indicated. 

(1)  The  drunkard  cannot  now  plead  drunkeimess  as 
an  excuse  for  his  crime.  “The  law  is  well  settled” — 
this  is  the  language  of  the  very  highest  legal  authority — 
“that  one  who  voluntarily  intoxicates  himself  and 
beclouds  his  reason  cannot  set  up  such  condition  in 
excuse  or  mitigation  of  a crime  committed  in  that 
condition.”  American  and  English  Encyclopaedia  of 
Law,  vol.  XV,  p.  239. 

(2)  The  courts  have  taken  many  positions  like  the 
following:  that  transportation  companies  are  under 
obligation  to  employ  none  but  sober  men;  that  a com- 
mon carrier  is  not  bound  to  provide  accommodations 
for  an  intoxicated  person;  that  habitual  drunkenness 
is  ground  for  removal  from  public  office,  for  dismissal 
from  positions  of  trust,  such  as  executor  or  guardian,  for 
the  dissolution  of  partnership,  for  granting  divorce  of 
husband  and  wife,  and  in  special  cases  for  the  voiding 
of  a contract.  All  these  decisions  are  powerful  helps 
to  the  cause  of  temperance. 

(3)  Statutes  have  been  passed  in  some  states  pro- 
viding that  habitual  drunkenness  be  treated  as  a disease, 
the  person  so  affiicted  being  considered  a patient  to  be 
cured  rather  than  as  a criminal  to  be  punished,  and 
institutions  have  been  created  to  carry  out  this  idea. 

(4)  Both  legislatures  and  courts  are  constantly 
enlarging  the  liabilities  of  the  saloon-keeper.  There 
are  many  state  laws  similar  to  the  Illinois  Dramshop 
Act,  which,  in  section  9,  not  only  holds  the  saloomkeeper 
liable  for  injuries  in  person  or  property  sustained  by 
any  one  through  the  sale  of  liquor  by  him,  but  the  ovmer 
of  the  building  in  which  the  liquor  is  sold  is  himself 
held  responsible  for  injuries  so  occasioned.  And  the 
Appellate  Court  of  Illinois,  in  a decision  recently  handed 

[191] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


down  (1904),  went  so  far  as  to  hold  that  “a  saloon- 
keeper is  hable  for  the  death  of  a patron  while  under 
the  influence  of  liquor  sold  by  him.” 

(5)  In  March  1913,  a law  was  passed  by  the  legis- 
lature of  New  York  attaching  a penalty  of  one  year’s 
imprisonment,  or  a $500.00  fine,  against  intoxicated 
chauffeurs:  a very  wise  statute  which  other  states  will 
soon  adopt.  But  we  may  well  ask:  Why  stop  here.^ 
If  we  abridge  his  hberty,  why  not  abridge  the  liberty  of 
the  seller  who,  by  his  business,  puts  this  man  and  the 
general  public  in  great  danger.?  In  Michigan,  we  find 
this  prohibition  in  a statute,  first  passed  in  1873:  “No 
person  shall  be  employed  as  an  engineer,  train  dis- 
patcher, fireman,  baggage  master,  conductor,  brake- 
man,  or  other  servant  upon  any  railroad  in  any  of  its 
operating  departments,  who  uses  intoxicating  drinks  as 
a beverage.”  Many  other  states  now  have  similar 
laws  (See  Chapter  X) . A business  firm  in  Massachu- 
setts recently  employed  a drunkard  who  killed  a fellow- 
employer.  The  widow,  Mrs.  Annie  McNicol,  sued  for 
damages  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state  has 
decided  in  her  favor.  Mass.  Decisions,  vol.  215,  Part 
III,  1913.  These  are  only  a few  illustrations  of  the 
way  in  which  legislative  statutes  and  court  decisions 
are  responding  to  the  world’s  growth  in  temperance 
sentiment. 


Policy  of 
Prohibition 


The  fact  that  two-thirds  of  the  area  and 
over  half  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States  are  under  prohibition  is  impressive 
and  significant.  Whatever  we  may  think  of  this 
policy,  it  represents  a deepening  consciousness  of  the 
immense  evils  of  the  Drink  Habit  and  the  Liquor 
Traffic.  It  is  a fact  of  which  we  must  take  account. 
This  situation  has  been  slowly  won  against  the  gigantic 
Liquor  Trust,  the  corrupt  politician,  and  the  apathy  of 


[ 192] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


many  respectable  people.  The  forces  behind  it  are 
widespread,  intensely  earnest,  and  destined  to  increase. 
They  are  temperance  education  in  the  public  schools; 
the  influence  of  doctors  and  captains  of  industry;  the 
teachings  of  life  insurance;  the  awakened  conscience  of 
the  Christian  Churches;  the  aggressive  fight  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League;  the  constant  pressure  of  the  Woman’s 
Christian  Temperance  Union.  In  the  face  of  these 
forces,  it  is  evident  that  saloons  must,  sooner  or  later, 
go  out  of  existence.  Their  continuance  is  now  solely 
due  to  the  indifference  of  respectable  people,  who, 
temperate  themselves,  do  not  appreciate  the  gravity  of 
the  Drink  Curse.  As  soon  as  such  people  realize  how 
great  the  Drink  Evil  is,  all  necessary  laws  can  be  enacted 
and  enforced.  We  are  fast  coming  to  see  that  the 
supreme  necessity  is  not  the  regulation  of  the  traffic,  but 
the  suppression  of  the  habit. 

Prolffibition  has  its  severe  critics,  and  its  enforcement 
under  the  conditions  which  have  long  existed  in  some 
places  has  been  difficult  and  imperfect.  But  a slight 
change  in  attitude  among  certain  respectable  people 
would  make  the  enforcement  of  strict  repressive  laws, 
against  the  making  and  selling  and  drinking  of  liquor, 
an  easy  and  successful  task.  And  this  will  soon  be 
brought  about  by  the  various  methods  of  education 
now  operative  and  by  the  pressure  of  industry,  insurance 
and  medical  science.  What  can  be  done,  when  public 
sentiment  is  sufficiently  strong,  has  been  made  clear 
by  recent  experiences  in  San  Francisco,  Liverpool,  and 
other  cities.  During  the  trying  period  following  the 
earthquake  and  fire,  the  saloons  were  closed  tight. 
The  diminution  of  crime  was  immediate  and  rapid.  The 
demonstration  was  complete  that  the  Liquor  Traffic 
can  be  stopped  and  its  immense  evils  ended,  just  as 
soon  as  the  people  care  to  do  so.  That  drastic  laws  can 

[193] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


be  permanently  enforced  just  as  soon  as  respectable 
people  realize  that  the  emergency  is  constant  and 
menacing.  Just  as  soon  as  they  see  that  drinking  beer 
and  whisky  works  havoc  in  times  of  quiet  as  in* days 
of  stress  and  strain. 

The  same  lesson  was  taught  during  a 

Enforcement  'lei-i  "t- 

Possible  period  of  strike  in  Liverpool  in  the  summer 
of  1911.  Justices  of  the  Peace  ordered  all 
drink  shops  to  be  closed  at  two  o’clock  in  the  afternoon, 
Aug.  18.  The  number  of  daily  cases  in  the  pohce 
courts  fell  at  once  from  180  to  41,  while  legitimate 
trade  in  the  poorer  districts  immediately  increased! 
This  policy  of  early  closing  continued  for  ten  days  with 
most  excellent  results.  What  is  the  obvious  lesson? 
Simply  this;  When  the  people  wish  it,  when  the  now 
indifferent  respectable  people  awake  to  the  seriousness 
of  the  Drink  Evil  and  decide  that  something  adequate 
must  be  done,  then  the  most  drastic  repressive  laws 
can  easily  be  enforced.  When,  for  instance,  we,  as  a 
people,  take  the  same  attitude  toward  the  Liquor 
Traffic  as  we  have  long  taken  toward  smallpox  and 
cholera,  and  are  coming  now  to  take  toward  tuberculosis 
and  other  contagious  diseases.  The  time  will  soon 
come  when  the  general  public  will  enforce  some  form 
of  prohibition  as  it  now  enforces  sanitary  regulations 
against  cesspool  and  contaminated  milk  and  impure 
water.  Deaths  from  the  diseases  just  mentioned  are 
nothing  in  comparison  to  the  destruction,  phj-sical, 
social,  and  moral,  flowing  from  open  saloons. 

The  experience  in  the  Panama  Canal  Zone  has  been 
most  illuminating.  Over  30  saloons  in  1907.  But 
by  the  constant  pressure  of  the  authorities  these  were 
gradually  reduced  until  only  one  remained  a few 
months  ago.  And  then,  on  April  24,  1913,  the  Com- 
mission voted  to  abolish  this  and  extend  prohibition 

[194] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


to  the  whole  Zone!  What  is  successful  there  can  be 
made  successful  everywhere,  when  the  people  realize 
the  evils  of  Drink  as  the  officials  there  have  come  to 
realize  them.  The  Canal  Record,  April  30,  1913. 

When  we  reach  the  point  of  view  respecting  the 
Liquor  Traffic  that  the  Chinese  have  reached  respecting 
the  Opium  Habit,  all  necessary  laws  can  be  enforced. 
The  recently  elected  president.  Yuan  Shi  Kai,  in  1905, 
denied  the  ballot  to  opium  smokers  in  Tientsin.  So 
strong  is  the  feeling  of  the  Chinese  at  present  against 
the  Habit  that  in  several  provinces  the  users  of  opium 
are  not  allowed  to  vote,  while  the  man  who  raises 
opium  is  put  to  death.  Rev.  Dr.  James  W.  Bashford, 
Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  writes  from  Peking  (Sept. 
11, 1913) : “Inasmuch  as  the  sentiment  against  opium  is 
exceedingly  strong  in  China,  it  is  altogether  probable 
that  the  present  Parliament  will  also  deny  the  franchise 
to  opium  users  everywhere.” 

A famous  Chinese  physician.  Dr.  Wu 
Testimony  Lien-Tch  (it  was  he  who  stamped  out  the 
Doctor*^^*  plague  in  Manchuria),  while  attending  the 
International  Medical  Congress  in  London 
(1913),  made  this  remarkable  statement:  “Only 
seven  years  ago,  half  the  adult  population  of  China 
smoked  opium.  Today  I think  that  you  can  scarcely 
find  one  per  cent.,  who  do  so.  I feel  sure  that  what  we 
have  been  able  to  do  in  China,  can  easily  be  done  in 
Europe  in  regard  to  the  question  of  alcohol.”  These 
words  were  spoken  at  a banquet  given  in  London  by 
the  National  Temperance  League,  which  was  attended 
by  over  two  hundred  distinguished  doctors  from  all 
parts  of  the  world.  And  this  declaration  by  the  cele- 
brated Chinese  scientist  was  heartily  applauded.  A 
significant  statement,  indeed,  which  we  may  well  lay 
to  heart.  Why  not?  Can  we  not  do  as  well  as  the 
[195] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Chinese?  Drink  does  America  more  harm  than  opium 
ever  has  done  China.  Therefore,  the  success  of  pro- 
hibition is  simply  dependent  upon  the  enlightened 
conscience  of  the  American  people.  When  they  come 
to  know  what  science  teaches  and  also  come  to  see  how 
great  the  miseries  caused  by  liquor  really  are,  they  will 
decree  the  doom  of  the  saloon. 

It  is  asserted  by  many  that  prohibition  has  been  a 
farce  in  Maine.  The  enforcement  of  the  law  there 
has,  however,  been  made  unusually  difficult  because 
of  these  and  other  similar  facts:  (1)  The  inabihty  of 
the  authorities  to  prevent  the  shipment  of  liquors  into 
the  state,  an  unfair  and  intolerable  situation  which  the 
recently  enacted  W'^ebb  Law  is  meant  to  remedy.  (2) 
The  use  of  vast  sums  of  money  by  the  Liquor  Interests 
to  tempt  the  citizens  of  Maine  to  violate  the  law,  and 
to  create  through  the  press  of  the  country  an  exagger- 
ated impression  of  the  situation  there,  claiming  a 
complete  failure  of  the  law.  (3)  The  demands  of 
thousands  of  summer  tourists  who  coerce  and  bribe 
hotel  keepers  and  others  to  pro^^de  liquors  for  them, 
and  who  then  go  abroad  over  the  land  and  declare  that 
prohibition  in  Maine  is  a failure! 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  wonder  is  that  the 
law  has  been  enforced  as  well  as  it  has  been,  and  its 
comparative  failure  in  certain  places,  especially  during 
the  tourist  season,  does  not  discredit  the  prohibition 
policy  as  applied  under  normal  conditions:  imder  the 
conditions  of  an  awakened  consciousness  of  the  vast 
evils  of  Drink,  which  is  sweeping  o's  er  our  land.  W'e 
can  all  most  heartily  join  with  Hon.  Joseph  H.  Choate, 
who  recently  used  these  words:  “I  think  we  owe  a 
great  tribute  to  our  brethren  in  the  southern  states  for 
the  overwhelming  force  with  which  the  reform  has  been 
conducted.  ” 


[196] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


The  benefits  of  the  “Maine  Law”  (the  same  may- 
be said  of  Kansas  and  other  states),  as  shown  in  the  sta- 
tistics of  crime,  pauperism,  and  insanity,  on  the  one 
hand;  and  on  the  other,  of  education,  thrift,  and  general 
prosperity,  especially  when  compared  with  “liquor” 
states  similarly  situated,  present  an  impressive  argu- 
ment for  rigid  restrictive  statutes.  The  comparative 
conditions  of  license  and  no-license  towns,  and  of  the 
same  town  under  successive  periods  of  license  and  no- 
license, teach  the  same  lesson.  And  nowhere  has  the 
experience  in  this  line  been  more  decisive  than  in 
Massachusetts. 

The  recent  experience  in  Worcester 
The  Lesson  (Mass.),  the  largest  city  to  vote  out  the 
Worcester  saloon  (population,  140,000),  clearly  demon- 
strates what  law  and  public  opinion  can  do  to 
lessen  the  evils  of  Drink.  The  No-License  party  con- 
trolled the  city  for  two  years,  1908  and  1909 : beaten  by 
a comparatively  small  majority,  secured  by  corrupt 
methods.  An  association  at  St.  Louis  (Mo.),  in  the 
interests  of  the  brewers  there,  issued  a pamphlet  (1910), 
purporting  to  describe  results  under  No-License  in 
Worcester,  in  which  it  was  claimed,  among  other 
things,  that:  (1)  “Hospital  records  show  an  increase  of 
alcoholic  patients,”  over  the  preceding  license  years; 
and,  (2)  “Poliee  court  records  show  that  drunkenness 
grew  more  common.” 


[197] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Let  Us  Look  at  the  Facts 


Arrests  for  drunkenness  (license), 
1906-1908  = 


7,971 


“ “ (No-license), 

1908-19101  = 

A decrease  of  41  per  cent. 

Arrests  for  drunkenness  (license), 
1910-1912  = 


4,641 


9,111 


An  increase  of  195  per  cent. 


Arrests  for  all  causes  (license), 

1906-1908  = 

12,162 

“ “ (No-license), 

1908-1910  = 

9,325 

A decrease  of  31  per  cent. 

Arrests  for  all  causes  (license), 

1910-1912  = 

13,811 

An  increase  of  46  per  cent. 

Alcoholic  Patients  at  City  Hospital 
(Under  License)  (1906-1908)  = 

Alcoholic  Patients  at  City  Hospital 
(Under  No-License)  (1908-10)  = 


A decrease  of  34  per  cent. 

Alcoholic  Patients  at  City  Hospital 
(Under  License)  (1910-1912)  = 

An  increase  of  107  per  cent.^ 


678 


Comment  on  these  comparisons  is  surely  unnecessarj'. 

1 The  police  under  the  temperance  Mayor,  the  Hon.  James  Logan,  were 
naturally  more  vigilant  in  arresting  “drunks,”  which  would  tend  to  make 
comparisons  with  license  periods  less  favorable  to  no-license  than  actual  con- 
ditions would  warrant. 

2 The  Worcester  Board  of  Health  reported  48  deaths  from  alcoholism  in 
1906-1908  (license):  16  in  1908-1910  (no  license):  and  38  in  1910-1912 
(license). 


[198] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


In  the  pamphlet,  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
it  is  asserted:  “The  whole  city  was  infested  with  crime 
[during  the  no-license  period]  and  2,000  dives  were 
running  men,  women  and  children  to  hell’s  gate.” 
But  this,  if  true,  is  an  admission  from  a defender  of 
saloons  that  Drink  does  all  the  evil  that  the  temperance 
advocate  claims.  How  can  drinking  liquor  in  2,000 
“dives”  be  so  bad,  if  drinking  it  in  200  saloons  is  inno- 
cent? The  evil  lies,  not  in  the  place  where  bought 
but  in  the  liquor  itself.  It  makes  practically  no  differ- 
ence whether  a man  obtains  a drink  at  a licensed  bar  or 
from  a “blind  tiger.”  Typhoid  germs  kill  whether 
taken  from  the  town  pump,  or  from  a secret  spring. 
The  above  statement  respecting  the  evils  claimed  to 
have  been  produced  by  the  2,000  dives  damns  the 
whole  business. 

Moreover,  it  was  the  Liquor  Trade  which  stood 
behind  the  2,000  dives.  Hon.  James  Logan  asserts, 
what  is  obviously  true,  that  such  “dives”  existed  under 
license,  and  while  the  number  increased  under  no- 
license, the  figure  just  given  represents  a great  exag- 
geration. In  this  connection,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  “Trade”  actually  promoted  the  starting  of 
these  “dives”  and  the  arrests  of  the  keepers  (even 
inducing  low  women  to  engage  in  the  business),  in 
order  to  make  a black  record  against  the  mayor  and 
turn  public  sentiment  against  no-license! 

But  the  policy  of  no-license  was  not  responsible  for 
the  existence  of  those  illegal  drink  shops.  They  were 
largely  products  of  a lawless  business.  Obviously,  the 
society  against  horse  stealing  in  pioneer  days  was  not 
responsible  for  the  robbing  of  hen  roosts.  The  “ Trade  ” 
that  encourages  the  unlawful  sale  of  liquor  cannot  with 
reason  charge  the  evils  of  its  use  upon  the  friends  of 
sobriety.  This  pamphlet  even  quotes  a Worcester 

[199] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


brewer  who  boasts  of  his  illegal  sales:  “I  made  more 
money  during  the  two  years  of  no-license  in  Worcester 
than  ever  before.”  If  evils  existed  to  such  an  extent 
(which  was  not  the  case),  who  but  the  liquor  men  were 
responsible  for  “running  men,  women,  and  children  to 
hell’s  gate?  ” The  2,000  dives  could  not  have  furnished 
the  liquor,  had  not  the  Trade  illegally  sold  it.  More- 
over, the  claim  in  the  pamphlet,  that  the  records  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  show  that  more 
liquor  was  shipped  into  Worcester  under  no-license  than 
under  license,  is  absolutely  false.  Hon.  William  J. 
Meyers,  Statistician  of  the  Commission,  asserts  that 
no  such  records  exist.  Such  baseless  claims  abound, 
not  only  in  this  pamphlet,  but  in  liquor  publications  in 
general. 


More  used 
in  “Dry” 
Territory? 


Two  matters  need  brief  attention  at  this 
point,  especially  because  erroneous  impres- 
sions respecting  them  are  widespread.  (1) 
It  is  often  asserted  that  more  liquor  is 
consumed  in  prohibition  territory  than  in  other  places. 
But  what  are  the  facts?  Testimony  was  recently 
presented  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 
that  20,000,000  gallons  of  liquor  were  annually  shipped 
by  express  into  prohibition  states.  But  this  would 
make  only  about  one  and  one-half  gallons  per  capita 
consumption  for  these  states : the  U.  S.  Brewers’  Associa- 
tion (Year  Book:  1912)  gives  even  a smaller  amount. 
Careful  investigations  place  the  present  per  capita 
consumption  in  Kansas  (including  medicinal  and  indus- 
trial uses)  at  3.01  gallons.  The  per  capita  for  the  whole 
nation  (including  these  prohibition  states)  is,  however, 
some  twenty  gallons!  This  does  not  prove  that  pro- 
hibition is  a farce!  Again,  a Portland,  Maine,  news- 
paper has  frequently  asserted  that  over  $1,000,000.00 
are  sent  out  of  the  state  annually  by  the  people  of  Maine 


[200] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


for  liquors.  But  this  would  be  only  about  $1.50  per 
capita  for  its  people  (not  counting  the  large  summer 
population  which  consumes  the  most  of  it),  while  the 
per  capita  for  our  nation  is  over  $20.00! 

It  has  been  argued  that  prohibition  must  be  a failure 
because  the  per  capita  consumption  of  liquor  increases 
as  the  prohibition  territory  enlarges.  But  the  increase 
in  use  for  the  whole  country  does  not  prove  (as  any  one 
ought  to  realize),  that  more  is  used  than  formerly  in 
“dry”  states.  The  rapid  growth  of  our  big  cities,  all 
“wet,  ” largely  due  to  drinking  immigrants  from  abroad 
(some  ten  millions  in  the  last  dozen  years),  the  increase 
in  wealth  and  the  consequent  tendency  to  luxury,  and 
the  gigantic  efforts  of  the  “Trade”  to  increase  its  sales 
as  seen  in  newspaper  and  billboard  advertisements: 
these  are  the  chief  causes  of  the  increase  in  our  per 
capita  consumption.  Also,  the  use  of  alcohol  in  indus- 
tries rapidly  increases  from  year  to  year. 

To  hold,  as  some  writers  do,  that  prohibition  actually 
promotes  drinking,  because  the  per  capita  use  of  liquors 
has  increased,  in  the  nation  as  a whole,  as  prohibition 
territory  has  extended,  is  an  obviously  illogical  claim: 
a non-sequitur  of  gigantic  proportions.  If  there  should 
occur  in  the  entire  nation  a rapid  increase  in  the  cases 
of  smallpox  (due  to  immigration  and  unsanitary  con- 
ditions), no  one  would  attribute  this  increase  to  the 
more  rigid  enforcement  of  vaccination  in  a half-dozen 
states.  And  yet,  this  would  be  no  more  unreasonable 
than  the  assertions  of  these  opponents  of  prohibition. 

Evidently  Mr.  George  B.  Hugo,  an  intelligent  liquor 
dealer,  was  correct  when  he  stated  at  the  Sagamore 
Sociological  Conference:  “There  is  certainly  less  con- 
sumed in  prohibition  states:  There  is  no  question 
at  all  about  that.  Of  course  it  may  be  claimed  that 
prohibition  does  not  prohibit;  but,  if  it  does  not  pro- 

[201  ] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


hibit  and  they  (brewers  and  distillers)  sell  more  goods 
under  prohibition  why  are  they  fighting  the  law?” 
See  Conference  Report  (1910),  p.  12. 

(2)  But  there  always  comes  up  in  these 
discussions  the  matter  of  “Blind  Tigers,” 
and  similar  devices  for  the  illegal  selling 
of  liquors,  which  are  said  to  be  very  numerous  under 
prohibition.  In  reply  it  may  be  confidently  stated: 
Prohibition  prohibits  as  well  as  any  system  of  mere 
regulation  regulates.  The  liquor  trade,  it  may  be 
said,  is  on  the  whole,  extremely  lawless:  Its  finished 
product  is  a criminal,  and  it  will  ^^olate  any  law  that 
is  enacted.  Prominent  journals  representing  the 
“Trade”  openly  admit  this  fact.  Careful  investiga- 
tion shows  that  the  proportion  of  “Blind  Tigers”  per 
population,  in  license  territory  is  just  about  as  great  as 
in  prohibition  territory.  A mildly  restrictive  hquor 
law  does  not  stop  the  illegal  selling  of  liquors,  as  is 
assumed  by  the  opponents  of  prohibition.  And  it  is 
manifestly  absurd  for  us  to  allow  those  engaged  in  an 
admittedly  evil  business  to  dictate  the  terms  of  legis- 
lation, saying:  If  you  let  us  have  our  way,  we  udU 
not  break  the  law,  but  if  you  draw  the  rein  too  tight, 
we  shall  sell  in  spite  of  the  law! 

Of  course  “Blind  Tigers”  in  a community  are  bad. 
But  the  evils  which  they  represent  will  be  finally  abol- 
ished, not  by  making  hquor  laws  more  liberal,  but  by 
manifold  processes  of  education,  which  will  destroy 
both  Drink  Habit  and  Liquor  Traffic.  And  even  a 
blind  tiger  in  a commimity  is  not  so  bad  as  the  ferocious 
animal  with  wide  open  eyes,  at  large  on  the  streets, 
under  the  protection  of  the  law,  and  standing  at  everj' 
corner  to  snap  at  our  boys  and  devour  our  weak  and 
wayward  men! 


[202] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


Advancing 

Legislation 


Men  are  not  safe,  and  the  community 
is  not  safe,  until  men  refuse  to  drink  from 
the  enlightened  action  of  their  own  will. 
But  the  state  must  recognize  that  there  are  many  weak 
persons  in  its  population  who  need  all  possible  dis- 
couragement against  the  use  of  liquor  and  all  possible 
protection  against  the  temptation  to  drink.  It  is 
under  heavy  obligations  to  do  all  that  it  can,  as  fast  as 
it  can,  not  simply  to  regulate  but  to  destroy  the  Drink 
Habit  and  the  Liquor  Traffic.  To  this  end,  it  must 
use  law,  so  far  as  public  sentiment  will  enforce  it.  And 
it  must  foster  all  kinds  of  educational  agencies  to 
create  a public  sentiment  adequate  to  enforce  all  meas- 
ures aimed  at  the  destruction  of  these  ancient  evils. 

Law,  unsupported  by  public  sentiment,  as  has  been 
stated,  is  ineffective,  but  public  sentiment  without  the 
law  is  incomplete.  Therefore,  temperance  agitation 
and  education  must  constantly  evolve  moral  feeling 
against  the  habit  of  drinking  and  the  maker  of  drunk- 
ards. Legislation,  hospitable  to  sobriety  and  repressive 
toward  intemperance,  must  be  successfully  adapted 
to  new  phases  of  the  problem.  Social  evils,  like  plant 
pests,  become  in  time  immune  to  certain  remedies, 
and  new  ones  have  to  be  devised.  The  warfare  against 
evil  never  ends.  The  foe,  driven  from  one  entrench- 
ment, burrows  at  some  other  spot.  The  enactment 
of  the  best  temperance  statute  is  but  the  forging  of  a 
weapon.  But  this  weapon  alone  will  not  win  a victory. 
To  overcome  the  great  evil  toward  which  it  is  aimed, 
it  must  be  used  by  righteous  men,  who  become  irresis- 
tible by  virtue  of  a supreme  enthusiasm  for  humanity. 
It  is  not  enough  to  have  a model  law  on  the  statute 
book  of  the  state:  it  must  be  enforced  by  public  opinion. 
The  situation  calls  for  wise  statesmanship  and  high 
expediency:  a less  stringent  law  vigorously  enforced 
[203] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 

is  far  better  than  a more  drastic  statute  that  is  generally 
ignored. 

The  friends  of  temperance  need  to  be  both  idealists 
and  opportunists:  committed  to  restrictive  pohcies 
as  temporary  measures,  and  also  favorable,  wherever 
possible,  to  legislation  destructive  of  the  Traffic.  They 
must  be  willing  to  strike  it  wherever  it  can  be  hit.  To 
capture  even  an  outpost  helps  toward  the  final  victory. 
Whatever  curbs  the  power  of  the  maker  and  seller  and 
lessens  the  opportunity  of  the  user  means  progress  for 
sobriety.  Laws  need  to  be  enacted  that  will  increas- 
ingly restrict  the  Trade,  shortening  the  hours  of  sale 
and  putting  heavier  burdens  upon  the  business.  Held 
more  and  more  responsible  for  injuries  done  to  women 
and  children,  saloons  must  be  removed  farther  and 
farther  from  residence  districts  and  industrial  plants. 
Wherever  public  safety  is  concerned,  law  must  enforce 
abstinence.  Saloons  ought  to  be  made  to  carry,  by 
special  assessment,  the  entire  cost  of  inebriate  asylums 
and  hospitals.  No  local  community  should  be  allowed 
to  share  in  its  license  fees,  bribing  voters  to  vote  for 
saloons  to  lessen  taxes.  All  such  revenues  (to  be  abol- 
ished as  soon  as  possible)  should  be  used  for  general 
state  purposes  as  remote  as  possible  from  enterprises 
supported  by  public  taxation. 

The  best  law  respecting  this  matter  for 
any  community  is  the  one  that  can  be  best 
enforced,  always,  however,  remembering: 
(1)  No  law  will  be  universally  obeyed:  (2)  All  laws 
will  be,  so  far  as  possible,  violated  by  many  engaged  in 
the  liquor  business,  which  is  always  lawless:  (3)  It  is 
unfortunate  to  have  any  law  that  gives  to  the  liquor 
trade  a vested  interest  or  that  implies  the  public  sanc- 
tion of  it  as  a legitimate  business.  The  evil  influence 
of  this  state  endorsement  of  liquor  is  greater  than  the 

[204  ] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


evil  due  to  the  sporadic  contempt  of  law  arising  from 
the  imperfect  enforcement  of  restrictive  legislation. 

The  opponents  of  prohibition  make  very  much  ado 
about  the  “contempt”  of  law,  which  such  a statute  is 
said  to  occasion.  They  claim  that  the  illegal  selling 
of  liquors  brings  all  government  into  disrespect.  But 
people  should  remember  that  some  lawlessness  at  this 
point  is  not  to  be  compared  with  the  general  lawless- 
ness practiced  by  the  Liquor  Trade.  The  saloons 
represent  a much  more  serious  contempt  of  many  laws. 
Breaking  a prohibitory  stature,  here  and  there,  is  not  so 
great  a menace  to  good  government,  as  the  abounding 
criminality  which  the  saloon  fosters,  no  matter  whether 
laws  are  mild  or  severe.  To  raise  the  issue  respecting 
the  contempt  of  law  comes  with  poor  grace  from  sellers 
of  liquor  who  produce  thousands  of  lawbreakers,  and 
from  drinkers  who,  by  the  use  of  liquor,  bring  into 
contempt  the  good  of  humanity  and  the  laws  of  God 
as  revealed  by  science! 

The  merits  and  demerits  of  the  Scandi- 
navian method  for  the  municipalization  of 
the  sale  of  liquor  have  been  acrimoniously 
debated  for  some  years.  The  opinions  even  of  fair- 
minded  people  interested  in  temperance  reform,  have 
radically  differed  on  this  subject.  After  much  reading 
of  the  statements  from  both  sides,  and  with  an  earnest 
desire  to  make  a fair  presentation  of  the  exact  facts,  I 
wish  briefly  to  describe  the  present  situation. 

The  advocates  of  the  system,  which  varies  consid- 
erably in  different  cities,  make  the  following  claims  in 
its  behalf:— 

(1)  The  liquors  sold  are  pure,  as  all  temptation  to 
adulterate  them  is  removed. 

(2)  The  city  shops  (called  Bolags  in  Sweden  and 

1 205  1 


Gothenburg 

System 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Samlags  in  Norway),  where  liquors  are  sold,  are  clean, 
orderly,  and  free  from  vicious  associations. 

(3)  The  system  prevents  all  illegal  selling,  putting 
an  end  to  “blind  tigers”  and  “bootlegging.” 

(4)  The  local  company  of  respectable  citizens  carrj"- 
ing  on  the  hquor  business  in  any  community  has  no 
interest  in  increasing  the  amount  sold,  being  paid  only 
a fixed  percentage  on  the  capital  invested,  all  other 
gains  going  to  the  public  treasury.  This  is  claimed  to 
be  a decided  advantage  over  the  common  saloon,  where 
the  greed  of  the  bar-tender  verj^  naturally  seeks  to 
induce  customers  to  drink  to  excess. 

(5)  Another  great  advantage  claimed  for  the  system 
of  so-called  “disinterested  management,”  is  that  it 
removes  the  corrupting  influence  of  the  hquor  trade 
from  politics. 

(6)  By  this  system  the  profits  of  the  trade  are  made 
to  serve  the  whole  community : The  evil  habit  of  a few 
is  compelled  to  do  good  to  all. 

(7)  The  results  of  a generation  show,  so  it  is  claimed, 
that  both  the  quantity  of  liquors  used  per  capita  and 
the  number  of  crimes  committed  in  these  countries  have 
greatly  decreased. 

Surely  this  is  a long  and  impressive  list  of  merits. 
But  do  the  facts  support  these  claims? 

Let  us  first  consider  the  last  advantage 
t^Farts?  claimed  for  the  system.  The  truth  is  that 
over  sixty  years  ago  there  was  a great  tem- 
perance uprising  in  Sweden,  and  in  1855  (some  ten 
years  before  the  Gothenburg  system  was  started)  a 
parish  local  option  law  was  passed,  by  which,  by  vote 
of  the  people,  the  sale  of  liquor  was  at  once  stopped  in 
2,000  of  the  2,400  local  districts  of  the  country  (many 
of  the  remaining  400  have  since  stopped  the  trade). 
The  gains  for  sobriety  were  immediate,  long  before  the 

[206] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


Bolag  came  into  existence.  Moreover,  the  system 
itself  has  never  been  applied  to  more  than  about 
one-fifth  of  the  Swedish  population.  Obviously,  the  de- 
crease at  that  time  in  the  use  of  liquor  cannot  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  Bolag.  It  must  be  remembered,  also  in 
this  connection  that  Sweden  now  consumes  (in  spite 
of  the  non-sale  in  so  many  parishes)  nearly  a gallon 
more  hquor  per  capita  than  Great  Britain.  The 
death-rate  from  alcoholism  in  Stockholm  is  the  greatest 
in  the  world.  Such  facts  do  not  commend  the  system. 

Take  now  the  matter  of  crime.  When 
Lessened  system  was  put  in  force,  about  1865, 

a radical  change  was  made  in  the  law  gov- 
erning the  arrests  for  drunkenness.  Previously  the 
peace-offieer  had  been  given  two-thirds  of  the  fine  for 
making  the  arrest.  This  poliey  naturally  led  to  many 
abuses.  When  this  law  was  repealed,  these  arrests 
suddenly  decreased,  making  this  apparently  sudden 
decline  in  crime  due  to  the  new  Bolags,  which  had 
in  fact  nothing  to  do  with  this  result.  And  yet  learned 
writers  have  made  much  of  this  circumstance.  Their 
conclusion  in  this  respect  is  wholly  erroneous. 

Again,  in  the  cities  whieh  have  the  system,  crimes  in 
general,  and  arrests  for  drunkenness,  have  increased 
faster  then  the  population.  Gothenburg  today  is  itself 
over  five  times  as  drunken  as  London  if  we  judge  by 
police  records  alone,  which,  however,  afford  only  a 
tentative  means  of  comparison.  In  Bergen  and  Chris- 
tiania (Norway)  the  convictions  fcr  drunkenness  are 
respectively  30  and  57  per  thousand  annually.  In 
English  cities  of  similar  class,  Hull  and  Liverpool,  they 
are  13  and  11.  In  Stockholm,  the  cases  of  drunkenness 
are  about  twice  what  they  were  (in  proportion  to  pop- 
ulation) in  the  dozen  years  before  the  system  was 
established  there  in  1877.  In  spite  of  the  general 

[207] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


abstinence  of  the  people  in  the  rural  districts,  it  is  esti- 
mated that  there  are  50,000  drunkards  at  present  in 
Sweden,  one  to  every  14  men.  Surely  the  system  has 
not  been  a panacea. 

Let  us  now  consider  briefly  some  of  the 
sup^rte^  other  claims.  That  in  reference  to  the 
purity  of  liquors  sold  needs  no  special 
attention.  They  cannot  be  rendered  harmless  by  being 
sold  in  pure  form  by  the  city.  People  often  talk  as 
though  the  only  injury  arises  from  adulteration.  But  the 
purest  liquor  is  a poison  so  far  as  it  contains  alcohol. 
No  ordinary  adulteration  can  make  it  worse  than  the 
alcohol  in  it.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  evidence  shows 
that  adulteration  of  liquors  is  common  in  Norway  and 
Sweden.  Whether  more  or  less  than  elsewhere,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine.  But  this  much  is  evident: 
the  system  in  practice  does  not  insure  purity. 

Is  the  Bolag  free  from  certain  evils  inherent  in 
the  saloon?  Theoretically,  “Yes.”  But,  practically, 
“No.”  The  stipulations  of  the  law  are  violated  there 
just  as  our  own  laws  prohibiting  Sunday  sales  are 
constantly  violated  with  us. 

Again,  does  the  disinterested  municipal  liquor-shop 
prevent  illegal  selling, — “ blind  tigers?  ” The  testimony 
is  conclusive  that  such  is  not  the  case.  No  better 
authority  can  be  cited  than  Dr.  Johan  Scharffenberg, 
who  writes : “ It  has  been  proved  that  there  were  more 

illegal  sales  in  Frederickstad  after  the  re-estabhshment 
of  the  Samlag  in  1904  than  in  1903,  when  it  was  closed.  ” 
The  same  is  true  in  many  other  places,  testifies  the 
eminent  scientist.  Prof.  Harald  Westergaard  of  the 
University  of  Copenhagen.  The  leading  dailies  in 
the  large  cities  constantly  refer  to  reports  and  arrests 
in  connection  with  “blind  tigers,”  of  infinite  variety: 

[208] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


It  is  not 
“Disinter- 
ested” 


even  women  are  frequently  arrested  for  such  illegal 
selling. 

Is  it  true  that  by  this  system  the  sale  of 
liquors  is  made  purely  distinterested,  so 
that  the  “Trade”  has  no  temptation  to 
increase  the  amount  used?  In  theory, 
“Yes;”  but,  in  practice,  most  emphatically,  “No!” 
On  this  point,  no  end  of  testimony  is  at  hand,  similar 
to  the  following  statement  by  Oskar  Eklund,  M.  P., 
from  Stockholm  (1908):  “The  Gothenburg  system 
has  never  become  in  practice  what  it  was  in  principle. 
It  almost  immediately  degenerated  into  a common 
monetary  business,  and  the  warmth  of  its  advocates 
for  the  promotion  of  temperance  and  morality  dropped 
down  to  zero.  ” Mr.  Edwin  A.  Pratt,  a fair  and  careful 
investigator,  declares,  that  the  company  formed  to 
manage  the  trade  in  liquors  is  no  more  philanthropic 
in  its  motive  than  an  Enghsh  brewery.  Licensing  and 
Temperance  in  Sweden,  Norway,  and  Denmark.  1907. 
See  also:  The  Breakdown  of  the  Gothenburg  System. 
By  Ernest  Gordon.  1912. 

The  municipal  liquor  company,  in  buying  its  goods 
of  brewer  and  distiller,  not  only  increases  the  liquor 
power  in  the  town,  but  it  comes  into  entangling  alliance 
with  that  power,  a situation,  which,  as  experience 
shows,  is  productive  of  much  evil.  The  fact  is  that  it 
is  impossible  to  have  the  liquor  trade  in  any  community 
under  any  form  without  having  there  the  evils  that 
issue  from  Drink.  “Disinterested”  management  is 
an  illusion. 

Does  the  Gothenburg  system  take  the 
corrupting  influence  of  brewery  and  dis- 
tillery out  of  politics?  Its  advocates  so 
claim.  Theoretically,  the  companies  who 
operate  the  Bolags,  and  turn  its  profits 

[209] 


Liquor 
Interests 
still  in 
Politics 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


above  a certain  percentage  over  to  the  city,  or  the  state, 
are  disinterested  gentlemen  who  never  lift  their  fingers 
to  shape  the  political  policy  of  the  town.  But  the 
very  privilege  which  they  enjoy  gives  them  an  influence 
in  pohtics  which  is  often  corruptly  used.  This  is  a 
notorious  fact.  It  could  hardly  be  otherwise,  the 
business  being  what  it  is  and  human  nature  being  what 
it  is.  A trade  lying  on  the  borderland  of  crime  and 
vice  could  hardly  fail  to  have  a demorahzing  influence 
upon  those  engaged  in  it.  This  is  one  of  the  distinct 
evils  of  the  system.  It  neecessarily  tends  to  dechris- 
tianize  every  Christian  having  stock  in  such  a company. 
His  profits  from  Drink  make  him  tolerant  of  the  evils 
of  drinking. 

We  have  at  this  point  the  testimony  of  a distin- 
guished publicist  of  Finland.  Dr.  Matti  Helenius- 
Seppalii  of  Helsingfors,  member  of  the  Finnish 
Parhament,  who,  in  an  address  in  Holland  at  the  Inter- 
national Congress  on  Alcohohsm,  said : “ The  influence 

of  the  ‘trade’  is,  as  already  said,  great,  even  in  the 
cities  where  the  ‘Gothenburg’  system  is  introduced: 
the  money  which  the  cities  derive  from  the  saloons  and 
shops  is  large  and  one  does  not  like  to  slaughter  his 
milch  cow!  As  the  abstainers  saw  how  great  a hin- 
drance to  their  work  the  Gothenburg  System  was, 
they  took  to  teaching  the  youth  and  the  people  that 
the  trouble  brought  about  by  this  system  was  much 
greater  than  the  profits  in  money  received.”  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  this  Scandinavian  System  is,  in  essence, 
not  a reform,  but  a revenue  measure.  The  motive 
that  sustains  it,  is  the  desire  for  lower  taxes,  not  an 
interest  in  temperance. 

Just  here  an  important  point  remains 
Compa^^  to  be  considered.  Is  it  an  advantage  to 
have  the  profits  of  an  evil  custom  turned 

[210] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


to  the  service  of  the  whole  community?  Is  it  not, 
instead,  an  unmixed  evil  to  bribe  the  public  conscience 
to  condone  that  evil  just  because  its  profits  lessen 
personal  taxes  and  support  public  institutions?  It 
creates  a situation  which  says  to  a man.  If  you  will 
let  me  engage  in  this  evil  business,  I will  pay  half  your 
taxes  and  build  better  school-houses  for  your  children. 
This  is  nothing  but  the  service  of  the  devil  under  the 
livery  of  heaven.  Is  it  well,  for  instance,  to  make  the 
score  of  boys  and  girls  who  line  the  desk  of  the  public 
library  feel  that  they  can  have  one  more  book  a 
week  because  their  father  drank  a lot  of  liquor  in  a 
municipal  grog-shop?  Is  not  that  a most  demoral- 
izing situation?  Consider  what  might  have  been  if 
these  fathers  had  not  been  there.  None  would  have 
been  drunk.  None  would  have  beaten  wife  or  child. 
None  would  have  gone  home  empty-handed  to  a needy 
family  on  Saturday  night.  All  would  have  been  able 
to  buy  better  clothes  and  more  books  for  their  own 
children.  A small  part  of  the  money  wasted  at  the 
Bolags  would  have  given  the  community  greater 
benefits  than  come  from  such  profits.  The  arrange- 
ment is  as  wasteful  economically  as  it  is  ethically 
demoralizing. 

The  Rt.  Hon.  John  Burns,  no  temperance 
Te^^onies  fanatic,  has  hit  the  nail  squarely  on  the 
head  in  these  forcible  words : “ City  owner- 

ship of  public  houses  (saloons)  — the  Gothenburg 
system — will  elevate  drinking  into  a civic  virtue, 
boozing  will  be  a test  of  local  patriotism,  and  work- 
people will  drink  their  village  into  a free  library  or  a 
park  by  a process  that  will  land  many  in  the  hospital, 
some  into  jail,  a great  number  into  asylums,  all  into 
misery,  and  send  not  a few  into  the  cemetery!” 

A fact  of  great  significance  in  this  connection  is  this: 

[211] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


While  this  system  is  being  heartily  advocated  in  our 
own  land,  the  sentiment  in  Scandina\da  is  turning 
rapidly  against  it.  The  strict  temperance  people  of 
those  countries  have  never  approved  of  Bolag  or  Sam- 
lag.  Three  years  ago  during  a notable  strike,  55  per 
cent,  of  the  voters  declared  for  prohibition, — surely,  a 
severe  condemnation.  The  party  opposed  to  this 
system  recently  elected  128  out  of  230  members  of 
the  House  of  Commons  in  Sweden,  and  at  the  request 
of  this  majority,  on  November  17,  1911,  the  Coimcil  of 
State  appointed  a Royal  Commission  of  eleven  members 
to  investigate  the  growing  evils  of  the  present  system 
and  to  suggest  improvements,  especially  local  option 
for  cities,  a considerable  sum  of  money  being  appropri- 
ated for  the  purpose.  Mr.  Karl  Staaff,  the  prime  min- 
ister, in  defining  its  duties,  said:  “The  financial 
condition  of  the  state  would  rest  on  a safer  basis  under 
a general  condition  of  sobriety  than  by  encouraging 
a desire  for  and  the  use  of  liquor.  ” 

These  facts  prove  that  the  Bolag  is  not  considered 
a success  by  a majority  of  the  people  at  home.  At  a 
great  meeting  recently  held  in  Stockholm  (1911)  to 
memorialize  the  king  in  reference  to  the  increasing 
drunkenness  in  the  city  (in  spite  of  the  Bolags)  Rev. 
Elis  Heuman,  chaplain  to  the  king,  said  among  other 
things,  “The  whole  population  is  thus  becoming  poi- 
soned by  alcohol.”  Surely  we  would  better  shun  a 
system  that  is  so  generally  condemned  at  home. 

At  the  International  Anti-alcohol  Congress  held  a 
few  years  ago  in  Stockholm,  the  Gothenburg  system 
was  the  subject  of  a searching  discussion.  The  weight 
of  testimony  was  decidedly  against  the  Bolag.  There  is 
no  room  here  for  even  the  briefest  summary  of  that 
debate.  But  these  testimonies  are  tjq)ical:  Prof. 
August  Ljungren,  after  pointing  out  that  modern 

[212] 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  LAW 


science  recognizes  no  so-called  moderate  use  of  liquors 
containing  a poision  like  alcohol,  said:  “Every  system 
which  overlooks  this  fact  (as  the  Gothenburg  does) 
is  doomed  to  failure.”  The  eminent  Swedish  sociol- 
ogist, Prof.  G.  H.  von  Koch,  stated:  “I  held  for 
many  years  that  the  Gothenburg  system  was  based  on 
a sound  principle,  but  the  more  I have  studied  the 
question  the  more  decidedly  I have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  in  practice  it  works  out  altogether  badly.  ” 
Many  others  have  likewise  been  obliged  to  change  their 
opinions  for  the  same  reasons. 

Finally,  Prof.  August  Forel,  formerly  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Zurich,  a veteran  among  scientific  advocates 
of  temperance,  used  these  significant  words:  “That  the 
Gothenburg  system  in  Sweden  is  bad,  we  have  all  seen, 
and  it  is  confessed  on  all  sides.  How  can  alcohol  be 
fought  as  long  as  the  community  or  stock  companies 
are  interested  in  its  sale?”  Yes,  indeed,  how  can  it  be 
successfully  fought?  That  simple  question  demon- 
strates the  fatal  weakness  of  the  system. 

At  the  Twelfth  International  Congress  on  Alcoholism 
held  in  London  (1909)  the  best  that  an  apologist  for 
the  system.  Prof.  Lars  O.  Jensen,  of  Bergen,  could  claim 
for  it,  was  this:  “It  has  been  of  some  help  to  us  in 
this  respect” — lessening  the  consumption  of  liquors. 
But  even  this  point  was  disputed  by  nearly  all  the 
experts  who  indulged  in  the  discussion  of  Prof.  Jensen’s 
paper.  Proceedings,  p.  237. 

At  the  recent  (1913)  International  Congress  on  Alco- 
holism (the  Fourteenth)  at  Milan,  the  sentiment  of 
the  thousand  delegates  from  forty-four  countries  was 
overwhelmingly  against  this  system.  Hon.  Edvard 
Wavrinsky,  member  of  the  Upper  House  of  the  Swedish 
Parliament,  said:  “We  do  not  like  the  Gothenburg 
System.  . . . We  seek  to  crush  it  by  giving  our 

[213  ] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


towns  local  veto  powers,  and  will,  step  by  step,  abolish 
the  traffic  altogether.” 

A dozen  years  ago,  “Grey  Arms”  was 
FaUures  Opened  at  Broome  Hill,  Eng.,  under  the 
patronage  of  Earl  Grey,  to  show  how  the 
evils  of  Drink  could  be  abolished  by  “disinterested 
management,”  and  all  was  done  that  money  and 
respectability  could  provide.  But  the  venture  soon 
proved  a most  “dismal  failure,”  as  the  authorities 
there  declared.  On  complaint  of  clergy  and  police, 
fines  and  warnings  were  frequent.  A clear  demon- 
stration that  liquor  selling  and  liquor  drinking  can  no 
more  be  made  harmless  than  gambling  and  leprosy. 

The  results  of  the  “spirits-monopoly,  ” which  the 
government  of  the  Czar  began  to  introduce  into  Russia 
in  1895,  confirm  the  position  here  taken.  It  is  claimed 
that  the  object  of  the  government  was  more  moral  and 
hygienic  than  financial  in  establishing  this  monopoly. 
But  in  these  18  years,  both  the  per  capita  consumption 
of  liquor  and  also  the  amount  of  drunkenness  have 
greatly  increased:  the  consumption  per  head  of  the 
population  increased  some  13  per  cent,  in  the  seven 
years  from  1904  to  1911:  this  too  in  a time,  not  of 
prosperity,  but  of  financial  distress. 

The  deepening  conviction  which  is  more  and  more 
faking  possession  of  earnest  and  thoughtful  people 
all  over  the  world  is  this:  What  is  true  of  opium  in 
China  is  equally  true  of  liquor  in  every  land:  The 
infinite  mischief  lies,  not  in  the  way  it  may  he  obtained  hut 
in  its  use.  The  fact  which  forcibly  impresses  the 
employer,  the  physician,  the  scientist,  the  moralist, 
the  patriot  is  this:  Simply  to  change  the  method  of  sale 
cannot  rob  Drink  of  the  evils  which  it  produces.  They 
inhere  in  the  alcohol  and  go  with  it  however  and 
wherever  it  may  be  obtained. 

[2141 


“Thirty  years  ago  physicians  were  rather  promoters  of  the  use  of 
alcohol  both  as  a stimulant  and  as  a remedial  agent.  Now  even'- 
where  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  medical  men  are  foremost  opposers 
of  the  use  of  spirituous  liquors  as  a beverage  or  even  as  an  agent  in  the 
treatment  of  disease.”  Prof.  Frederick  Peterson,  M.  D.,  Columbia 
University,  New  York  Medical  Journal,  June  11,  1910. 

“This  scourge  of  drink,”  writes  M.  Leon  Bourgeois,  the  French 
ex-cabinet  minister,  “has  a prominent  place  in  all  our  social  miseries. 
We  meet  it  everywhere.  It  hides  itself  behind  tuberculosis,  in  mad- 
ness, in  crime,  but  it  is  always  at  the  bottom  of  all  our  evils,  of  all 
our  degeneracies.  It  is  the  chief  enemy  of  the  race.” 

“Alcoholism  is  universal  in  its  range,  no  order  or  class  is  free  from 
it.  It  takes  its  dreadful  toll  of  both  sexes  and  of  all  ages.  To  lessen 
its  influence  would  be  to  benefit  the  whole  community.  It  is  an  evil 
which  touches  every  one  of  us,  and  every  one  of  us  has  his  part  to 
play  in  the  war  against  it.”  Sir  Alfred  Pearce  Gould,  M.  D.,  Tenth 
Lees  and  Raper  Memorial  Lecture,  Oct.  31,  1912. 

“ I believe  that  in  this  simple  change  of  personal  attitude  from  pas- 
sive to  aggressive  lies  the  only  force  that  can  free  this  land  from  the 
drink  habit  and  the  liquor  traflSc.  It  would  be  like  dynamite  under 
the  saloon,  if,  just  where  he  is,  the  minister  would  begin  active  work 
against  it;  if,  just  where  he  is,  the  teacher  would  instruct  his  pupils; 
if  just  where  he  is,  the  voter  would  dedicate  his  ballot  to  this  move- 
ment, and  so  on  through  the  shining  ranks  of  the  great  powers  that 
make  for  righteousness.”  Frances  E.  Willard,  Glimpses  of  Fiftj' 
Years,  p.  335,  1889. 


[216] 


1 


'opyriglil  iQio,  by  Scicntilic  'I\-in|icranco  l'\‘(U'ralion.  Host' 


CHAPTER  X 
SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 

A serious  wreck  occurred  recently  (June,  1913)  at 
Stamford,  Conn.,  on  the  New  Haven  railroad,  in  which 
many  lives  were  lost  and  a large  number  of  persons 
were  injured.  The  engineer  was  not  charged  with 
drunkenness  in  this  case,  though  many  similar  disasters 
on  steamships  and  trains  in  recent  years  have  been 
due,  not  to  drunkenness,  but  to  drinking.  For  it  has 
been  clearly  shown  that  the  use  of  a small  amount  of 
liquor,  which  does  not  produce  visible  intoxication, 
does  impair  the  senses  and  the  judgment  and  so  renders 
the  man  unfit  for  the  best  service  and  that  too  for  a 
period  of  many  hours. 

The  New  Haven  officials  took  warning  from  this  dis- 
aster and  at  once  the  general  manager  demanded  a 
stricter  observance  of  the  rules  of  the  company,  among 
them  one  against  drinking.  A press  dispatch  states — 

“Without  reservation  he  told  the  men  that  infractions  of  the  rules 
must  cease:  that  drinking  would  have  to  stop,  that  any  man  who  came 
to  work  intoxicated  would  be  discharged  and  that  any  man  who  was 
discovered  in  a saloon  would  be  disciplined  immediately.  He  warned 
them  that  the  company  was  going  to  protect  itself  and  that  the  men 
would  be  watched.  Having  warned  its  men  the  railroad  company 
took  steps  to  see  that  the  warnings  were  being  heeded.  Detectives 
were  assigned  to  watch  some  employees  and  those  who  kept  records 
were  directed  to  see  that  every  infraction  of  the  rules  was  reported. 
The  result  was  a calling  together  of  certain  men  in  the  Harlem  River 
and  Stamford  yards  on  Thursday  night.  The  foremen  produced 
photographs  of  some  of  them  in  barrooms.” 

[217] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


This  is  a significant  sign  of  promise  and  a forcible  re- 
minder of  the  fact  that  the  industrial  world  is  constantly 
putting  the  bar  up  higher  and  higher  against  the  user 
of  liquors  in  any  quantity — a fact  of  which  young  men 
ought  to  take  serious  note.  For  this  fact  means  that 
drinking  (not  simply  drunkenness)  closes  the  door  of 
opportunity  against  them. 

In  this  connection  it  is  important  to  note 
the  fact  that  the  English  Board  of  Trade 
issued  sometime  ago  the  following  state- 
ment (approved  by  the  Railway  managers) : 
“No  man  who  is  ever  known  to  be  on  any 
occasion  the  worse  for  liquor  should  be 
allowed  to  take  charge  of  an  engine.” 
Here  may  well  be  added  an  editorial  comment  in  the 
New  York  Times  upon  the  engineer  of  the  wrecked  train 
at  Corning,  July  4,  1912,  Mr.  Schroeder,  who  was 
charged  with  having  been  drinking:  “We  had  all 
supposed  that  the  drinking  engineer,  as  well  as  the 
drunken  engineer,  was  banished  years  ago  from  every 
railway  line.  If  they  have  not  been  they  should  be, 
and  promptly,  as  the  very  first  step  toward  decreasing 
the  number,  equally  disgraceful  and  appalling,  of  our 
railway  fatalities.” 

In  commenting  on  this  wreck  at  Corning,  an  English 
authority  stated  recently  that  it  was  not  strange  that 
railroad  managers  were  enforcing  strict  prohibition 
upon  their  men,  the  loss  of  life  and  property  from  care- 
lessness due  to  Drink  being  enormous.  He  quoted  the 
testimony  of  the  president  of  the  Boston  and  Maine: 
“It  has  been  proved  that  90  per  cent,  of  the  trace- 
able causes  of  railway  accidents  is  due  to  intoxicating 
liquors.”  Also,  the  statement  of  Dr.  Ennis  of  the 
University  of  Heidelberg:  “Over  50  per  cent,  of  all 
railroad  accidents  on  German  railroads  are  due  to  the 

[218] 


Railroad 

Authorities 

Prohibit 

Drinking 

Among 

Employees 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


bewilderment  of  operatives  through  the  use  of  alcoholic 
liquors.”  In  passing,  it  may  well  be  noted  that,  if 
drinking  incapacitates  a man  for  running  a train,  how 
much  more  does  it  incapacitate  him  for  running  well 
the  common  race  of  life. 

Dr.  Reid  Hunt,  of  the  U.  S.  Hygienic 
Laboratory,  Washington,  D.  C.,  summarizes 
his  exhaustive  investigation  of  this  subject 
in  these  words: 


state  Laws 

Prohibit 

Drink  Among 

Public 

Conveyance 

Employees 


“More  than  thirty  states,  the  Canal  Zone,  and 
Porto  Rico  have  laws  restricting  the  use  of  alcoholic 
beverages  by  railway  employees;  many  of  these  laws 
date  from  1890  or  earlier.  In  several  states  similar  laws  exist  in 
regard  to  electric  railways  and  to  street-cars  whether  propelled  by 
electricity  or  drawn  by  horses.  A smaller  number  of  states,  about 
nine,  have  similar  regulations  in  regard  to  the  drivers  of  stage  coaches, 
cabs  and  other  vehicles,  and  six  have  similar  laws  relating  to  employees 
of  steam,  sailing  vessels,  and  canal  boats.  In  Michigan  and  Vermont 
the  employment  of  anyone  who  uses  intoxicating  drinks  as  a beverage 
is  forbidden.  In  some  others  (New  York  and  Ohio)  the  employment 
of  anyone  addicted  to  their  intemperate  use  is  prohibited.  In  a few 
(New  York  and  Ohio)  the  railway  is  liable  to  a fine  for  employing 
anyone  addicted  to  the  excessive  use  of  alcohol.  The  latter  provision 
relating  to  the  employment  of  drivers  of  coaches,  cabs  and  other 
vehicles  is  in  force  in  several  states.  The  railway  is  frequently  held 
specifically  liable  for  all  damages  entailed  by  the  negligence  of  an 
intoxicated  employee.”  (Quarterly  Journal  of  Inebriety,  May,  1913, 
p.  198.) 


Dr.  Hunt  proceeds: — “The  most  frequent  form  of 
these  regulations  is  as  follows:  ‘The  use  of  intoxicants 
by  employees  while  on  duty  is  prohibited.  Their  use, 
or  the  frequenting  of  places  where  they  are  sold,  is 
sufficient  cause  for  dismissal.’  This  seems  to  represent 
the  minimum  requirement  on  the  part  of  most  of  the 
American  railways.  A number  require  total  abstinence 

[219] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


both  on  and  off  duty  on  the  part  of  all  employees 
charged  in  any  way  with  the  direction  or  operation  of 
trains;  in  other  cases  this  rule  applies  to  all  of  the  em- 
ployees. Other  railway  companies  require  total  ab- 
stinence on  the  part  of  their  employees  when  on  duty 
and  state  that  preference  is  given  to  those  who  abstain 
from  alcohol  under  all  circumstances.  No  distinction 
seems  to  be  made  by  the  American  railways  between 
malt  and  distilled  liquors.” 

The  editor  of  The  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Engine- 
men's  Magazine  (Dec.,  1912),  has  recently  used  these 
words : 

“In  our  own  brotherhood  (Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Firemen 
and  Enginemen),  the  great  virtue — the  great  duty  of  temperance — 
of  total  abstinence,  is  one  of  the  first  lessons  our  members  are  taught 
at  its  altars,  and  this  lesson  is  impressed  upon  them  by  the  example 
of  their  general  ofiicers,  who  are  all  men  of  rigid  sobriety — nearly 
all  of  them  being  total  abstainers.  Our  men  themselves  know  how 
deeply  impressive  this  lesson  is  and  the  imposing  and  solemn  condi- 
tions under  which  it  is  so  forcibly  impressed  upon  them,  even  as 
candidates  entering  the  order.” 


Railroad 
Laws  Con- 
cerning 
Drink  in 
Germany  and 
Other  Lands 


Great  emphasis  is  placed  in  Germany 
(where  restrictions  have  long  existed)  upon 
educational  work.  Thus  the  railway  oflB- 
cials  are  directed  to  distribute  the  Merk- 
blatter  of  the  Imperial  Health  Office  on  the 
effects  of  alcohol  and  similar  publications 
by  temperance  societies;  the  railway  physicians  are 
requested  to  deliver  lectures  on  the  subject  of  alcohol- 
ism and  to  post  notices  concerning  the  effects  of  alcohol. 
In  Denmark,  Holland,  Norway,  Sweden,  France,  and 
Switzerland,  the  regulations  varj’,  but  there  are  re- 
strictions more  or  less  severe.  In  Australia  employees 
are  prohibited  from  visiting  places  where  alcoholic 
[220] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


liquors  are  sold.  In  New  Zealand  the  sale  of  alcoholic 
drinks  is  prohibited  not  only  in  all  of  the  railway  stations 
but  in  the  dining  cars.  In  the  British  Isles,  there  are 
restrictive  regulations,  but  not  as  severe  as  in  Germany 
or  many  American  states. 

The  attitude  of  American  railroad  oflScials 
The  American  on  the  subject  of  Drink  is  certainly  most 
SSiptrance  encouraging.  The  claim  of  the  Railway 
Organization  Age  Gazette  is  abundantly  warranted — 
“The  railroads  of  the  United  States  now 
constitute  one  of  the  grandest  and  most  effective 
Temperance  organizations  in  existence.”  The  Spring- 
field  Republican,  which  always  treats  subjects  with 
discrimination,  recently  used  this  language:  “The 
demands  of  business  are  doing  more  toward  eliminating 
the  Drink  Habit  than  all  the  temperance  orators.  The 
modern  deterrent  was  summed  up  by  the  general  super- 
intendent of  the  Pennsylvania  railroad,  speaking  of 
the  renewed  effort  of  the  company  to  stamp  out  tippling 
among  its  employees,  when  he  said,  ‘You  can’t  run 
trains  and  drink  rum  at  the  same  time.’” 

An  official  of  the  New  York  Central  Railroad  was  not 
speaking  too  strongly  when  he  said  recently: — “We 
would  sooner  have  a man  in  the  road’s  employ  take 
money  than  that  he  should  indulge  in  intoxicants. 
The  damage  that  would  result  from  stealing  would 
be  trifling  compared  with  the  trouble  which  might  result 
from  a conductor,  or  an  engineer,  or  even  a brakeman, 
partaking  too  freely  of  intoxicants.” 

It  is  significant  that  the  Southern  Pacific 
aT^outhern  years.  Carried  on  a systematic. 

Pacific  and  effective  war  against  the  saloon^ — the 

Railroad  railroad’s  worst  foe.  It  has  supplemented 
the  strict  enforcement  of  Rule  G,  prohibiting 
the  use  of  intoxicants  on  or  off  duty,  by  erecting  sixteen 

[221  ] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


club-houses  for  the  employees  at  operating  centers; 
Neat  rooms,  well-cooked,  wholesome  food  of  the  best 
quality,  and  non-intoxicating  drinks  are  provided  in 
these  club-houses.  Billiard  and  pool-tables,  bowling 
alleys,  libraries,  shower  baths,  loimging-places,  halls 
for  dances  and  meetings,  are  placed  at  their  disposal. 
Almost  from  the  beginning  these  club-houses  became 
extremely  popular,  and  served  as  effective  competitors 
of  the  saloon.  In  one  small  railway  town  of  3,000 
souls  twenty-nine  saloons  flourished  when  the  club- 
house was  opened.  The  saloons  fought  the  club-house 
bitterly,  but  two  years  after  its  opening  only  seven  of 
the  original  twenty-nine  bars  were  left.  Twenty-two 
were  closed  for  lack  of  patronage.  Everywhere  the 
division  superintendents  reported  greater  efficiency, 
sobriety  and  self-respect  among  club-house  patrons. 
Undoubtedly  the  clubs’  influence  upon  the  human  factor 
assisted  materially  in  bringing  about  the  record  of  four 
years’  safe  travel.  The  victories  won  in  the  flght  against 
the  saloon  by  the  institution  have  been  permanent  and 
progressive.  This  is,  indeed,  a most  encouraging  sign 
of  promise. 


We  live  in  an  intensely  practical  age. 
The  Industrial  Every  human  hfe  has  its  industrial  rating. 
Aglto^Drink  The  state  supervises  the  world’s  work. 

The  nation  insists  on  the  conservation  of 
its  energies  and  resources.  The  efficiency  of  the 
laborer  must  be  developed  to  the  highest  point;  what- 
ever menaces  his  economic  capacity  must  be  set  aside. 

How  these  tendencies  begin  to  restrict 
Industrial  drinking  and  promote  temperance  is 
shown  by  what  is  going  on  in  the  field  of 
industrial  insurance.  The  system  in  Ger- 
many provides  that  the  cost  shall  be  met  first,  by  the 
government  grant;  and  then,  the  balance  is  shared 


Insurance 
and  Drink 


[222] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


equally  between  the  laborer  and  his  employer.  Now, 
as  drink  increases  accidents  and  diseases,  making  the 
expense  of  such  insurance  higher,  all  parties  are  com- 
pelled to  consider  the  problem.  The  employer  is 
deeply  interested,  for,  if  his  men  drink  and  as  a result 
fall  sick  or  cause  accidents  (the  inevitable  result  of  the 
use  of  liquor),  he  will  have  more  to  pay.  The  sober 
workman  has  to  give  more,  because  of  the  intemperate 
habits  of  his  co-laborer.  He  is  therefore  anxious  to 
have  his  neighbor  stop  drinking.  The  state  is  moved 
by  the  same  considerations. 

Experience,  in  Germany,  has  shown  that  the  burden 
of  industrial  insurance  is  greatly  increased  by  tubercu- 
losis and  alcoholism.  For  example:  The  Sick  Benefit 
Insurance  Society  of  Leipsic  found  that  the  “heavy 
drinkers”  were  sick  two  or  three  times  as  often  as  the 
general  class,  were  unfit  for  work  from  one  and  a half 
to  two  and  a half  times  as  often,  while  the  death  rate 
was  much  higher. 

The  insurance  institutions  are,  therefore,  obliged  to 
take  steps  for  the  cure  and  prevention  of  these  evils, 
and  to  use  all  means  in  their  power  to  enlighten  the 
public  regarding  consumption  and  the  evils  of  Drink. 
As  a result,  a vigorous  campaign  of  education  is  on  in 
the  Fatherland  in  behalf  of  temperance,  and  exten- 
sive use  is  made  of  tracts,  pamphlets  and  newspaper 
publicity.  Popular  addresses  to  young  and  old  abound, 
given  by  doctors  and  teachers.  Also  exhibitions, 
which  give  in  graphic  form  the  facts  respecting  the 
injurious  effects  of  liquors. 

It  is  interesting  to  quote  here  from  a remarkable 
address  by  Herr  Karl  Kdgler  of  Vienna  on  this  very 
point:  “The  physical,  mental,  and  moral  health  of  the 
working  classes  is  not  simply  a question  of  wages  and 
working  hours,  but  it  is  also  a question  of  alcohol.” 

[223] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


In  summing  up  the  case  against  Drink  as  the  greatest 
enemy  of  Workman’s  Insurance,  he  uses  these  words; 
“It  increases  the  number  of  diseases,  lengthens  the 
period  of  sickness,  shortens  life,  aggravates  the  effects 
of  wounds  and  causes  premature  incapacity.  It  leads 
to  a degeneration  of  the  whole  race,  and  thereby  to  a 
general  increase  of  the  risks  and  burdens  for  every  class 
of  industrial  insurance.” 

This  widespread  education  in  behalf  of  sobriety,  this 
economic  pressure  against  Drink,  in  Germany  (and  in 
other  lands)  must,  in  a few  years,  radically  change  the 
habits  of  the  people.  The  man  who  drinks  is  not  so 
much  a criminal  as  a fool!  For  what  can  be  more  fool- 
ish than  to  tie  a hea\’y  weight  to  one’s  leg  to  act  as  a 
drag  wherever  one  goes.  And  the  habit  of  drink  is 
such  a drag  upon  life : a most  serious  handicap. 

But  the  most  impressive  temperance 
lesson  in  this  connection  is  being  taught 
by  the  ordinary  Life  Insurance  Companies. 
The  London  Times  in  its  issue  for  Sept.  14, 
1905,  stated; 


Insurance 
and  Drink 


“The  experience,  now  very  extensive,  of  insurance  offices,  seems  to 
place  it  beyond  doubt  that  even  the  moderate  regular  use  of  alcohol, 
in  any  form,  is,  on  the  whole,  contributory  to  the  shortening  of  life. 
\Mien  these  views  come  to  be  fairly  balanced  against  temporary  grati- 
fication of  the  palate,  or  temporary  stimulation  of  the  brain,  they  will 
be  likely  to  lead,  not  to  a single  ‘wave’  of  sobriety,  but  to  a gradual 
change  in  the  habits  of  the  more  intelligent  portion  of  mankind.’’ 


Two  generations  ago,  the  total  abstainer 
Lower  was  compelled  to  pay  an  extra  rate  for  his 

Insurance  insurance  policy.  Todav,  however,  there 

Rates  for  i i • i • i • 

Total  are  many  large  companies  which  give  him 

Abstainers  an  advantage  of  from  10  to  20  per  cent. 

This  change  has  been  brought  about  because 
[224] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


the  experience  of  the  life  insurance  world  has  shown 
that  abstainers  live  from  25  to  30  per  cent,  longer  than 
drinkers. 

The  Sceptre  Life  Association  of  London,  organized 
in  1864,  has  carried  its  patrons  in  two  sections,  a 
temperance  section  of  abstainers  and  a general  section 
of  non-abstainers.  The  general  manager,  William 
Bingham,  states  the  comparative  mortality  for  the 
past  30  years  to  have  been  as  follows:  The  percentage 
of  actual  to  expected  deaths  in  the  general  section  was 
about  80,  but  in  the  temperance  section  only  about  53, 
or  an  advantage  of  27  per  cent,  to  the  credit  of  the 
abstainers.  (Alcohol  and  Life  Assurance,  p.  3,  1910.) 
The  experience  of  this  company  for  1912  showed  similar 
results:  The  percentage  of  deaths  in  temperance  sec- 
tion, 38.13,  but  in  general  section,  69.70!  The  Scottish 
Imperial,  for  the  same  period,  reports  these  percentages : 
General  Section,  about  86  per  cent,  but  the  abstainers 
section  only  a little  over  39  per  cent. — an  advantage 
of  some  47  per  cent.!  The  record  of  the  “United 
Kingdom”  of  London  for  44  years  (1866-1910)  is  as 
follows:  the  mortality  of  non-abstainers,  over  91  per 
cent.,  and  abstainers  a little  over  66  percent,  of  the  ex- 
pected deaths,  being  27  per  cent,  less  for  abstainers. 
Other  companies  in  Great  Britain,  The  British  Empire 
Mutual,  The  General  Provident,  The  Scottish  Temper- 
ance, The  City  Life  (London),  report  similar  results. 

The  experience  of  the  New  England  Mutual  Life 
Insurance  Company  for  the  past  sixty  years  (it  makes 
no  division  among  its  policy  holders  similar  to  the 
“Sceptre  Life”)  shows  that  abstainers  have  very  much 
lower  annual  mortality  and  live  longer  than  drinkers. 
One  careful  insurance  authority  makes  this  statement: 
Of  100,000  insured  lives  from  25  to  65  years  of  age, 
the  general  mortality  is  1,390,  but  that  of  abstainers 

[225  ] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


only  786, — a decided  advantage!  A careful  comparison 
of  the  annual  mortality  of  the  Rechabites  (a  British 
temperance  order)  and  that  of  the  Odd  Fellows  in 
Great  Britain  (containing  many  abstainers),  reveals  a 
similar  condition,  with  decided  advantages  to  the 
credit  of  total  abstainers,  not  only  in  the  death  rate, 
but  in  the  number  of  cases  of  sickness. 

These  remarkably  impressive  facts  have  brought 
about  several  very  notable  changes  in  the  insurance 
world : 

(1)  Insurance  companies,  as  a rule,  both  in  America 
and  in  Europe,  either  refuse  to  insure  men  engaged  in 
the  liquor  business  or  charge  them  much  higher  rates. 

(2)  All  companies  are  exercising  greater  care  in  the 
investigation  of  the  drinking  habits  of  all  applicants 
for  insurance,  and  discriminating  more  and  more 
against  even  the  moderate  drinker. 

(3)  Many  companies  in  various  countries  give  total 
abstainers  special  rates,  for  the  same  insurance,  or 
larger  annual  bonuses,  or  other  advantages.  The 
United  Kingdom  of  London,  has  recently,  for  a period 
of  years,  granted  to  total  abstainers  holding  $5,000 
policies,  from  $90.00  to  $290.00  bonuses!  Other 
companies  give  abstainers  from  5 to  20  per  cent,  reduc- 
tion in  rates  or  equivalent  advantages.  Over  20  British 
Accident  Insurance  Companies  give  abstainers  a reduc- 
tion of  10  per  cent. 

The  following  advertisement  has  been  pubished 
lately  in  the  newspapers  of  Scandinavia : 

“The  Swedish  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  the 
largest  of  its  kind  in  Scandinavia,  in  view  of  the  lower 
death-rate  among  abstainers,  has  made  a special 
group  for  this  class  giving  them  an  exceptional  bonus.” 
A Norwegian  company  (Andvake  Life  Insurance 
Company)  has  also  established  a special  division  with 

[226] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


better  rates  for  abstainers.  It  has  put  this  division 
under  the  control  of  a committee  elected  by  the  organ- 
ized temperance  societies.  This  co-operation  between 
a life  insurance  company  and  the  nation’s  temperance 
forces  is  a new  and  suggestive  arrangement.  Several 
continental  companies  in  Europe,  beside  these,  grant 
abstainers  small  favors,  the  best  known  being  the 
Life  Assurance  Society  of  Zurich. 

In  America,  there  are  several  life  insurance  companies 
which,  at  present,  grant  total  abstainers  decided  ad- 
vantages (some  of  the  largest  companies  have  taken  the 
matter  into  serious  consideration) : The  Security  Mutual 
of  Binghamton,  New  York,  The  National  Temperance 
Life  Insurance  Company  of  Texas,  The  Manufacturers 
Life  of  Toronto,  Canada,  have  Total  Abstinence  De- 
partments, while  The  Equity  Life  of  Toronto  (organized 
1903)  stands  most  decisively  for  Total  Abstinence. 
In  a little  booklet,  the  Binghamton  company  says: 
“At  the  age  of  twenty,  a young  man  may  expect  to 
live  a certain  number  of  years  according  to  his  habit 
in  this  respect:  If  a habitual  drinker,  15  years;  if  a 
moderate  drinker,  31  years;  if  a total  abstainer,  44 
years.” 

A year  ago  (1912),  The  National  Temperance  Life 
Insurance  Society  was  organized  in  New  York  City, 
with  the  declared  purpose  of  insuring  only  total  ab- 
stainers. In  its  prospectus  we  read: 

“ The  Basic  Principle  of  this  society  is,  ‘ That  a Total  Abstainer  from 
the  use  of  alcoholic  liquors  is  a better  Life  Insurance  risk  than  a 
Drinker  and  that  he  is  justly  entitled  to  a lower  rate  by  reason  of 
such  Abstinence.’  Vital  Statistics,  Laboratory  Experiments,  and  Life 
Insurance  Experience  prove  conclusively  that  the  death  rate  among 
Abstainers  is  30  per  cent  less  than  the  death  rate  among  Drinkers. 
Abstainers  are  therefore  entitled  to  a correspondingly  lower  rate 
and  are  loudly  demanding  it  in  every  section.” 

[227] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Its  rates  are  from  32  to  21  per  cent,  lower  (according 
to  age — 20  to  50  years)  than  those  of  companies  in 
general.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  mortality 
of  abstainers  is  not  here  compared  with  that  of  adult 
males  in  general,  but  with  a selected  class:  the  only  ones 
accepted  by  insurance  companies,  a fact  so  much  to  the 
advantage  of  abstinence! 

(4)  One  of  the  most  striking  andsignifi- 
Campaign  of  cant  movements  in  this  connection  is  the 
Ed™cTtion'*  Campaign  of  education  in  temperance, 
by  Insurance  which  is  now  being  extensively  carried 
Companies  on  by  the  great  American  insurance  com- 
panies. In  a recent  number  of  The  Human 
Factor,  issued  by  The  Equitable  Life,  this  statement 
is  made: 


“Great  moderation  in  the  use  of  alcoholic  beverages  and  total  ab- 
stinence are  strongly  recommended.  The  daily  consumption  of 
alcohol  will  change  a muscle  of  iron  strength  into  a mass  of  flabby, 
unresisting  fat;  a steady  nervous  system  into  an  irritable,  jumping  set 
of  fibres;  a strong  and  active  mind  into  a weak,  stupid  and  pitiful 
state.  The  use  of  alcohol  reduces  the  body  to  the  lowest  degree  of 
resistance  to  disease,  especially  pneumonia.” 


In  a pamphlet  recently  printed  and  widely  circulated 
by  The  Provident  Savings  Life  Assurance  Society, 
this  summary  is  given  at  the  close  of  a clear  diseussion 
of  the  influence  of  Drink: 

“Alcohol  is  not  a ‘demon,’  but  a drug;  not  a stimulant,  but  an 
anesthetic.  In  so-called  moderate  quantities  it  reduces  muscular 
and  mental  efliciency.  It  suppresses  the  higher  brain  functions, 
thereby  releasing  the  lower.  It  is  most  dangerous  to  those  with 
weak  family  histories.  The  effects  of  excess  in  those  of  normal  family 
history  may  be  transmitted  to  their  children.  The  experience  on 
large  groups  of  insured  lives  shows  that  moderate  drinking  shortens 
life.” 


[228] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


On  April  1, 1911,  The  Postal  Life  Insurance  Company 
issued  a notable  Bulletin  (No.  5),  in  which  “Alcohol 
and  the  Death  Rate”  was  clearly  discussed.  The  fol- 
lowing paragraphs  are  not  the  extreme  statements  of 
temperance  fanatics  but  the  conclusions  of  men  re- 
sponsive to  the  pocket-nerve: 

“It  has  been  conclusively  shown  by  laboratory  experiments  that 
alcohol  taken  in  so-called  moderate  quantities  (two  glasses  of  beer 
daily)  reduces  mental  and  physical  efBciency.  Scientific  experi- 
ments show  that  alcohol  has  been  misnamed  a stimulant.  Its  total 
effect  is  anesthetic;  therein  lies  its  danger,  and  for  some  its  charm. 
The  power  of  associating  ideas  is  impaired  after  even  slight  alcoholic 
indulgence,  and  with  increased  indulgence  one  after  another  of  the 
higher  brain  centers  is  put  temporarily  out  of  commission.  The  use 
of  alcohol  in  medicine  as  a direct  heart  stimulant  is  obsolete.  It  is  a 
heart  poison.  It  is  still  used  as  a sort  of  temporary  and  rapidly  avail- 
able food  in  the  crises  of  fever,  but  to  a lesser  degree  than  formerly, 
as  it  is  known  to  lower  the  resistance  to  disease  toxines.  Its  use  as  a 
tonic  in  convalescence  is  dangerous,  and  it  is  now  seldom  thus  pre- 
scribed. But  aside  from  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  laboratories 
of  experimental  psychology,  there  are  other  laboratories,  whose 
testimony  may  be  more  readily  accepted  by  the  average  man.  Our 
great  railroad  systems  and  manufacturing  industries,  where  skilled 
labor,  depending  on  accurate  mental  processes,  is  employed,  discrimi- 
nate against  even  the  so-called  moderate  drinker, — not  on  moral 
grounds,  but  because  practical  business  experience  has  demonstrated 
the  higher  efficiency,  both  for  mental  and  physical  work,  of  the 
abstainer.” 

In  some  respects,  the  most  notable  enterprise  in  this 
connection  was  that  of  the  “Metropolitan”  company, 
which  employed  Miss  Cora  Frances  Stoddard,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Scientific  Temperance  Federation,  to  pre- 
pare, with  the  assistance  of  Dr.  Richard  C.  Cabot 
(Harvard  University),  Dr.  Frederick  Peterson  (Colum- 
bia University),  and  others,  a statement  descriptive  of 

[229] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  influence  of  alcohol  upon  life.  Over  5,000,000 
copies  of  this  Statement  were  distributed  (1911):  a 
master  stroke  for  true  temperance  reform. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  these  conclusions  drawn 
from  insurance  experience  will  pass  unchallenged.  No 
one  pretends  that  they  are  absolutely  accurate.  But 
Mr.  E.  B.  Phelps,  an  extremely  critical  writer,  who 
looks  with  suspicion  upon  some  assertions  made  in  this 
connection,  does  use  this  significant  language: 

“As  to  the  truth  of  this  sweeping  generalization  [respecting  the 
lower  mortality  of  abstainers],  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt,  con- 
firmations strong  as  proofs  of  holy  writ  are  to  be  found  in  the  great 
mass  of  tabulated  classifications  of  life  insurance  experience  for  the 
last  fifty  years  and  more,  and  the  carefully  kept  vital  statistics  of 
England,  Germany  and  some  other  countries  for  long  stretches  of 
years.”  (The  American  Underwriter,  July,  1913.  p.  2.)  In  a paper, 
“Effect  of  Total  Abstinence  on  the  Death  Rate,”  read  before  the 
Actuarial  Society  of  America  (Oct.  20, 1904),  by  Mr.  Joel  G.  Van  Cise, 
actuary  of  the  “Equitable,”  the  conclusion  of  certain  wide  insurance 
experiences  was  stated  in  these  words:  “The  rate  of  death  among 
non-abstainers  was  35%  higher  than  on  lives  of  abstainers.”  p.  8. 


Total 

Abstinence 
in  Army 
and  Navy 


The  growth  of  total  abstinence  in  the 
British  army  and  navy,  in  recent  years, 
has  been  remarkable.  And  equally  re- 
markable the  fact  that  it  has  been  approved 
by  the  military  leaders  of  the  Empire.  At 
a recent  annual  meeting  of  the  Royal  Army  Temperance 
Association,  which  now  has  a membership  of  nearly 
70,000,  Field-Marshals  Lords  Grenfell  and  Roberts 
spoke  of  the  great  change  which  had  come  over  the 
army  in  their  day,  and  some  remarkable  figures  were 
presented  from  Major-Gen.  Lawson,  C.  B.,  and  Surg.- 
Gen.  Gubbins,  as  well  as  from  two  Parliamentary’'  papers 
which  show  practical  results  that,  as  Surg.-Gen.  Evatt 
continually  points  out,  may  be  effected  just  as  certainly 

[230] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


in  civil  life  by  the  same  means.  Earl  Roberts,  corrobo- 
rating Lord  Grenfell  about  the  good  reports  he  received 
from  commanding  officers  as  to  the  conduct  of  their 
men,  said  he  seldom  met  a colonel  of  a regiment,  or  a 
major  commanding  a battery,  or  officer  commanding 
a depot,  without  asking  him  how  the  Association  was 
progressing,  whether  they  have  got  all  the  things  they 
require  to  encourage  the  men  to  join  it,  and  whether 
the  men  who  do  join  it  as  a rule  stick  to  it  for  any  time, 
and  how  they  get  on,  and,  above  all,  what  is  the  con- 
duct of  the  men  who  do  join?  He  always  got  the  same 
answer — “It  is  the  making  of  the  men.”  Earl  Roberts 
is  chairman  of  the  Council  of  this  Association,  while 
King  George  is  the  Royal  Patron. 

The  benefits  of  this  movement  in  the  army  (there  are 
nearly  30,000  abstainers  in  the  navy!)  are  many  and 
decisive,  as  the  following  comparisons  will  show:  In 
1902,  the  men  on  an  average  used  two  pints  of  beer  a 
day,  but  by  1911,  the  consumption  had  fallen  to  one 
half  that  amount,  or  one  pint  a day.  In  1902,  there 
were  15,009  court  martials,  but  in  1910  only  6,433.  The 
number  of  soldiers  coiffined  in  military  prisons  and 
barracks  in  1904  was  1,542,  but  in  1909  only  600.  In 
1904,  there  were  2,231  men  who  won  Good  Conduct 
Medals,  but  in  1910,  over  twice  that  number  or  4,581. 
In  1904  over  24,000  fines  were  inflicted  for  drunkenness, 
but  in  1910,  about  17,000.  The  decrease  in  sickness, 
brought  about  by  the  spread  of  abstinence  among  the 
soldiers,  has  been  very  marked,  especially  in  the  Orient. 
A regiment  stationed  in  China  in  1908,  contained  300 
abstainers,  and  the  sickness  among  them  was  only  one 
half  as  great  as  among  the  rest  of  the  regiment.  In 
this  and  other  ways,  it  is  estimated  that  abstinence 
has  added  over  10  per  cent,  to  the  efficiency  of  the  army. 
The  Secretary  of  State  for  War  recently  declared: 

[231  ] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


“The  health  of  the  Army  has  so  improved — mainly 
owing  to  the  spread  of  temperance — ^that  they  have 
been  enabled,  without  extra  cost,  to  add  six  thousand 
soldiers  to  the  available  forces  of  the  country.” 

The  Royal  ^ Writer  in  a recent  number  of  the  Na- 
Army  tional  Temperance  Quarterly  (London) 

Temperance  summed  up  the  encouraging  situation  in 
Association  following  statement: 

“The  temperance  position  to-day  is  so  strong  that  the  Royal  Army 
Temperance  Association  now  dominates  the  field  previously  held  by 
the  canteen.  Branches  are  active  centers  for  social  intercourse,  re- 
creation, high-class  entertainments,  athletic  and  military  sports,  and 
it  will  readily  be  understood  that,  with  an  average  of  between  40  and 
50  per  cent,  of  the  soldiers  of  a imit  enrolled  as  temperance  men, 
the  influence  for  all-round  good  on  the  other  half  of  the  unit  must  be 
very  strong  indeed.  The  results  are  well  shown  in  the  Army  official 
reports  of  crime,  health  and  discipline.  Military  offences  have  been 
reduced  to  a minimum,  the  death  and  sickness  rates  are  lower,  even 
in  India,  than  amongst  any  other  class  of  lives  anywhere,  whilst  the 
discipline  of  the  British  Army  has  never  been  at  a higher  standard, 
and  never  so  easily  maintained,  as  it  is  to-day.  The  soldiers’  money, 
formerly  spent  almost  entirely  in  alcoholic  drinks  and  low  amusement 
is  now  put  to  much  better  use.  Canteens  are  frequented  by  very 
few  men,  and  the  sale  of  Drink  has  decreased  enormously.  In  the 
corporals’  mess  of  one  depot  the  beer  sales  amongst  23  corporals  aver- 
age five  shillings  weekly,  and  this  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the 
prevalent  rate  of  expenditure  in  the  liquor  bars  of  army  canteens.” 

Two  of  the  most  decided  advantages  arising  from 
abstinence  in  the  army  and  navy  are  the  better  marks- 
manship and  the  greater  endurance  which  are  the 
direct  results. 

Admiral  Sir  J.  R.  Jellicoe  recently  made 
Total  the  following  statement:  “As  regards 

tnd^od^  straight  shooting,  which  is  so  largely  a 

Marksmanship  question  of  eye,  it  is  every  one’s  experience 
that  abstinence  is  necessary  for  the  highest 

[232] 


Q 
Z 
< 

Q 

< 

U 

CO 

UJ  z S 

< : 

CQ  ^ o 

S CO  ^ 

O < 

(j  q::  o 


> 

< 

Q 

UJ 

CJ 


< 


z 

o 


-J 

O (Z 

z o 
o § 

U 

< z 

u.  ^ 

o ^ 

CO 

H 

U 

UJ 

Uh 

U- 

UJ 


f- 

z 

pj 

_J 

< 

> 

D 

o 

U1 

z 

Ld 

< 

H 

_1 

o 

X 

o 

u 

-J 

< 


ro 

CSI 


s'  t 

o 1 


z ^ 

o _. 


fo 


Z 


< 


CO 


I 


< 

“o 

< 

z 

. i 

CO 


V -= 

> i 


o = 

“So  — 


CO  -t 


>%  2 
ri  .= 
:2 


< 


Kcpoi-I,  l.icul.  Hcnnl  Hoy  {Sweden,  iQO-t).  CoiiyriglU  i<)io,  liy  Seienlilie  'I'eniperenee  l•'ede^:llion,  lioston. 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


efficiency.”  An  officer  in  the  British  Navy,  Captain 
Ogilvy,  who  had  very  large  experience  in  training 
officers  in  shooting,  and  also  great  success  in  actual 
warfare,  went  most  exhaustively  into  the  statistics  of 
this  important  matter  and  he  found  that  the  shooting 
efficiency  of  the  men  was  30  per  cent,  better  be- 
fore than  after  drinking  moderately!  He  represented 
graphically  the  vital  fact,  demonstrated  by  his  investi- 
gations, in  the  form  of  a curve,  which  is  known  in  the 
military  circles  of  Great  Britain  as  the  “Grog  Curve.” 
This  symbol  brings  out  very  impressively  the  superiority 
of  total  abstinence  over  so-called  “moderate  drinking.” 
Admiral  Lord  Charles  Beresford,  a total  abstainer, 
lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  all  his  prize  gunners  were  men 
who  did  not  drink! 

In  the  Swedish  army,  shooting  tests,  conducted  by 
Lieut.  Bengt  Boy,  in  1904,  showed  that  on  days  when 
men  took  no  alcohol  they  were  able  to  make  359.5 
points,  but  only  277.5  points  when,  thirty  minutes  before 
shooting,  they  drank  less  than  two  glasses  of  mild  beer. 
Also,  tests  were  made  with  men  while  abstaining  and 
with  others  who  drank  about  two  glasses  of  beer  a day. 
The  latter  thought  that  they  were  doing  better  with 
the  beer,  but  the  men  when  abstaining  made  more  than 
six  times  as  many  hits! 

As  to  endurance,  the  following  testi- 
monies are  significant:  In  1896,  General 
Sir  Francis  Grenfell  said:  “I  see  some  old 
comrades,  who  have  served  in  the  same  cam- 
paign, and  I see  on  the  right  breast  medals 
for  Temperance,  and  on  their  left  the  medals  which  the 
Queen  had  given  them;  and  I think  you  will  agree  that 
the  medals  on  the  right  are  as  creditable  as  those  on 
the  left.  The  campaign  in  Egypt  was  a teetotal  cam- 
paign. We  drank  the  Nile  and  nothing  added.” 

[233] 


Total 

Abstinence 

and 

Endurance 


SHALL  I DRINK? 

Writing  of  the  same  campaign,  Lord  Wolseley  stated: 

“All  the  troops  up  the  Nile  in  the  Soudan,  have  now  been  for 
months  without  either  beer  or  spirits,  and  no  little  army  was  ever 
more  contented,  and  no  men  could  behave  better  in  camp  or  6ght 
better  in  field  than  did  our  soldiers  in  their  late  gallant  effort  to  reach 
Khartoum  in  time  to  save  the  life  of  that  noble  hero,  General  Gordon. 
The  fully  satisfactory  results  of  the  total  abstinence  practice  on  the 
Nile  campaign  were  demonstrated  by  the  adoption  of  the  same  method 
in  the  subsequent  Soudan  campaigns.  Similar  benefits  followed  in 
these  also.  General  Gatacre’s  men,  upon  a non-grog  diet,  marched 
fifteen  miles  across  the  desert,  manoeuvred  at  halting  time,  and  during 
the  whole  five  hours  ‘not  a single  man  fell  out.’” 

It  is  an  encouraging  fact  that  a good  deal  of  effec- 
tive temperance  work  is  being  done  among  European 
soldiers.  This  is  especially  the  case  in  Germany.  The 
German  War  Office  distributes  to  its  soldiers  a 
pamphlet.  Alcohol  and  Endurance,  which  forcibly  warns 
them  against  Drink,  stating  that  alcohol  is  a poison 
which  injures  digestion  and  causes  general  devastation. 
In  it  we  read:  “That  there  is  no  justification  in  calling 
beer  liquid  bread.  ...  It  is  mostly  beer  which 
causes  so  much  mischief.” 

A Vienna  correspondent  of  the  Journal  of  the  Ameri- 
can Medical  Association,  writing  recently  from  the 
scenes  of  the  Balkan  war,  stated:  “A  fact  worthy  of 
notice  is  the  nearly  complete  absence  of  alcohol  from 
the  daily  bill  of  fare  of  the  soldiers  on  the  frontier. 
It  has  also  been  ascertained  that  whenever  a period 
of  endurance  was  required  of  the  soldiers,  those  who 
took  no  alcohol  were  much  more  fit  for  work  than  the 
other  men.” 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
modern  General  takes  a deep  interest  in  the  sobriety 
of  his  soldiers.  The  highest  efficiency  and  greatest 
success  of  his  army  depend  upon  it.  It  is  unfortunate 

[234] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


that  so  little  has  been  done  in  this  direction  in  our 
own  army  and  navy.  In  one  respect  our  government 
is  far  ahead  of  Great  Britain:  It  has  abandoned  the 
daily  ration  of  grog  to  the  men  of  its  Navy.  However, 
in  the  British  Navy,  liquors  are  now  to  be  prohibited 
on  the  eve  of  an  engagement,  whereas  formerly  the 
allowance  of  grog  was  then  doubled.  No  more  patri- 
otic duty  rests  upon  our  military  Chieftains.  The 
general  influence  of  such  a movement,  by  many  lines 
of  example  and  reaction,  would  be  very  great  upon  the 
country  at  large. 

A few  military  men  in  our  own  land  realize  the  situa- 
tion and  are  deeply  interested  in  the  Temperance  Cause. 
Among  them,  Gen.  A.  S.  Daggett  and  Surgeon  L.  Mer- 
vin  Maus.  The  Y.  M.  C.  A.  has  an  Enlisted  Temper- 
ance Abstinence  League  which  has  at  present  (1913) 
about  6,000  members  in  the  Army  and  Navy:  an 
encouraging  fact,  but  more  ought  to  be  done  for  our 
“Boys  in  Blue”  along  this  line.  The  most  earnest 
words  ever  spoken  by  the  late  Gen.  Frederick  D. 
Grant  Were  these:  “If  I could,  by  offering  my  body  a 
sacrifice,  free  this  country  from  this  fell  cancer,  the 
demon  drink,  I would  thank  the  Almighty  for  the  privi- 
lege of  doing  it.” 

Among  the  most  encouraging  signs  of  the 
Recent  times,  to  the  friends  of  sobriety,  are  such 
pXiica^ns  publications  as  the  following,  indicating 
somewhat  new  and  very  powerful  agencies 
in  behalf  of  popular  temperance  education: 

I.  Alcohol  in  Industry:  No.  1,  Manuals  of  Safety, 
issued  by  the  American  Museum  of  Safety  (Office, 
29  West  S9th  Street,  New  York  City.  The  price  of  this 
valuable  document  is  10  cents) . This  is  a pamphlet  of 
40  pp.,  being  the  report  by  Dr.  William  H.  Tolman, 
Director  of  the  Museum,  of  his  investigations  respecting 

[235] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


the  conditions  among  German  Trade  Associations. 
For  various  and  obvious  reasons,  the  risks  and  hazards 
of  modern  life  have  greatly  increased  in  recent  years. 
The  safety  of  human  life  requires  in  every  direction  an 
alert  mind  and  a vigorous  body.  As  accidents  have 
multiplied  with  astonishing  rapidity,  industrial  mana- 
gers have  become  alarmed,  and  we  have,  in  this 
pamphlet,  the  summary  of  a careful  study  of  “Some 
European  Methods  of  Prevention.” 

This  little  pamphlet  is  a veritable  arsenal  of  facts, 
which  show  how  the  use  of  liquor  destroys  industrial 
efficiency,  and  increases  accidents.  Let  me  present  a 
few  of  them:  Many  employers  of  labor  in  Germany 
“report  that  the  prevention  of  alcoholism  in  the  factory 
(by  strict  rules  prohibiting  the  use  of  liquors  or  by  the 
substitution  of  non-alcoholic  drinks)  has  increased  the 
product:  the  work  is  better  done,  there  are  less  faults, 
and  the  number  of  accidents  has  fallen.”  One  states: 
“Since  beer  has  been  prohibited  in  the  morning,  I 
have  had  better  order  in  my  workrooms  and  better 
work.”  Another  testifies,  “ By  substituting  tea  for  beer, 
the  consumption  of  beer  has  fallen  from  2,000  to  200 
bottles,  and  quarrels  among  the  workmen  have  com- 
pletely ceased.”  The  Continental  Rubber  Company 
substituted  coffee,  and  in  1909  prohibited  brandy; 
and  in  the  sixteen  years,  from  1894  to  1910,  the  per- 
centage of  accidents  went  down  from  13  to  6.  In 
1905  the  German  Imperial  Insurance  Office  sent  a 
circular  letter  to  every  manufacturer  in  the  empire 
through  the  various  trade  associations,  in  which  it 
urged  the  instruction  of  their  young  employees  and  also 
the  women  workers  in  regard  to  the  dangers  of  alcohol, — 
a most  effective  temperance  measure.  A still  more 
significant  fact,  showing  how  the  danger  from  Drink  is 
[236] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 

coming  to  be  recognized  in  high  places,  is 
this : “ The  Emperor  has  ordered  that  every 
recruit  of  the  Imperial  Navy  and  Army  on 
his  entrance  into  the  military  service  should 
be  provided  with  a pamphlet  showing  the 
connection  between  alcohol  and  the  military 
strength  of  the  nation,” — pointing  out  forci- 
bly how  Drink  decreases  the  efficiency  of  the  people. 

Some  ten  years  ago.  Dr.  A.  H.  Stehr  of  Wiesbaden 
published  his  conclusions  respecting  the  relation  of 
alcohol  to  accidents  and  efficiency.  He  showed  by  ex- 
haustive investigations  that  the  largest  number  of  acci- 
dents occur  on  Monday  after  the  drinking  of  Sunday  and 
that  accidents  decrease  as  the  days  pass,  while  the  week 
begins  with  low  efficiency  which  increases  to  the  maxi- 
mum at  Friday  noon : a most  forcible  indictment  against 
alcohol!  The  findings  of  the  Minnesota  Bureau  of 
Labor  (1910)  and  the  Massachusetts  Industrial  Acci- 
cent  Board  (1912),  that  the  most  accidents  occur  about 
10  A.M.  and  3 P.M.  confirm  this  indictment,  as  those 
are  the  hours  when  the  effects  of  drinking  would  be 
most  felt.  That  is,  the  maximum  injury  to  the  system 
occurs  some  three  hours  after  using  the  liquor. 

No  wonder,  then,  that  Accident  Insurance 
companies,  in  pamphlets  distributed  among 
manufacturers,  warn  them  against  permit- 
ting men  who  have  been  drinking  to  operate 
dangerous  machinery.  Such  facts  as  these 
led  the  Industrial  Congress,  held  in  Hamburg,  1908, 
to  pass  this  resolution: 

“The  Industrial  Congress  recognizes  it  as  one  of  the 
most  important  objects  of  the  industrial  movement 
to  oppose  the  devastation  of  alcoholism  by  instruction 
and  other  practical  means.  It  is  therefore  to  the  inter- 
est of  industry  to  remove  from  all  gatherings  and  insti- 

[237] 


Action  of 
Accident 
Insurance 
Companies 


Emperor 
William 
Orders  In- 
struction in 
Total 

Abstinence 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


tutions  of  all  kinds,  every  coercion  to  drink  and  to 
restrict  the  sale  of  alcoholic  drinks  either  entirely  or  as 
much  as  possible.” 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  passing  that  this  industrial 
prohibition  of  liquor,  is  not,  after  all  a recent  invention : 

“Records  have  been  found  on  Babylon  cuneiform  tablets  forbidding 
the  use  of  wine  in  any  form  to  persons  engaged  in  public  business, 
asserting  that  work  done  for  the  Government  by  persons  who  used 
wine  could  not  be  perfect.  All  builders  of  palaces,  army  officers  and 
superintendents  of  public  work  were  required  to  abstain  absolutely 
from  all  spirits.  During  the  reign  of  one  of  the  Rameses  attention 
was  invited  to  public  disasters  following  the  use  of  wine  by  the  leaders 
and  orders  given  under  pain  of  death  for  total  abstinence  among  public 
employees.”  (Col.  L.  Mervin  Maus,  M.  D.,  Address  before  the 
National  Association  of  Military  Surgeons,  1912). 

II.  In  December,  1912,  The  North  Carolina  State 
Board  of  Health  issued  a Bulletin  (No.  9)  entitled: 
The  Liquor  Problem  and  Public  Health  (28  pp.).  Over 
40,000  copies  of  this  interesting  and  signifieant  pamph- 
let have  been  sent  free  to  the  citizens  of  the  state.  This 
is  a clear  and  conservative,  but  convincing,  statement, 
largely  written  by  doctors,  with  abundant  facts, 
earnest  appeals,  and  special  articles  for  boys;  It  will 
surely  exert  a most  powerful  educational  influence. 
Dr.  W.  S.  Rankin,  Secretary  of  the  Board,  summarises  in 
these  words  some  of  the  results  of  Drink: 

“It  has  been  shown  that  for  every  unnecessary  death  there  are  700 
days  of  unnecessary  sickness.  On  that  estimate  alcoholic  intemper- 
ance produces,  in  addition  to  the  65,897  deaths,  46,127,900  days,  or 
126,377  years,  of  individual  siekness  every  year  in  this  country. 

Liquor  is  to  blame  for  one  out  of  12  adult  deaths. 

Liquor  is  to  blame  for  one  out  of  10  male  deaths. 

Liquor  is  to  blame  for  one  out  of  7.5  adult  male  deaths. 

Liquor  is  to  blame  for  twice  as  many  deaths  a year  as  are  caused  by 
typhoid  fever. 


[238] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


Liquor  is  to  blame  for  more  deaths  in  four  years  than  were  de- 
stroyed in  action  in  the  four  years  of  the  Civil  War. 

The  liquor  problem  is  a public  health  problem.” 

III.  The  Effect  of  Alcoholic  Drinks  upon  the  Human 
Mind  and  Body  (1913).  This  is  a pamphlet  of  32  pp. 
prepared  by  Cora  Frances  Stoddard  (Scientific  Temp- 
erance Federation,  23  Trull  St.,  Boston),  at  the  request 
of  the  Anti-Saloon  League  of  Maryland.  It  has  been 
distributed  free  to  the  pupils  of  the  Public  Schools  of 
Baltimore  to  help  them  in  writing  essays  in  competition 
for  400  prizes  (ranging  from  $3.00  to  $50.00)  offered  for 
the  best  productions  on  this  subject.  This  is  a work 
of  great  value  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made. 
As  an  educational  agency  it  is  significant,  and  it  will 
prove  a power  for  good.  It  opens  with  the  testimonies 
of  athletes  against  alcohol.  Among  them  that  of  Connie 
Mack,  the  leader  of  the  “Athletics”  of  Philadelphia, 
who  have  in  eleven  years  won  four  American  League 
pennants  and  two  of  the  world’s  series.  He  does  not  ap- 
prove of  his  men  drinking  even  a glass  of  beer.  He  says, 
“alcoholism  is  practically  eliminated  from  baseball,” 
and  he  prophesies  that  “in  five  years  ninety  per  cent,  of 
the  players  will  be  strictly  temperate.”  He  also  states 
that  the  entire  team  went  through  the  championship 
games  of  both  1910  and  1911  without  drinking  even  a 
glass  of  beer.  Here  it  may  be  recalled  that  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Pittsburgh  club  adopted  this  rule  in  1911: 
“The  use  of  intoxicating  drinks  of  any  kind  is  absolutely 
prohibited,”  while  the  “Cubs”  of  Chicago  (football), 
have  been  under  a total  abstinence  rule  during  1913. 

In  this  pamphlet,  sections  are  devoted  to  the  follow- 
ing topics:  the  Relation  of  Alcohol  to  Work,  Effect 
of  Alcohol  on  Skill,  Brain  Work  impaired  by  Alcohol, 
Drink  and  Accidents:  the  Relation  of  Drink  to  Crime, 

[239] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


Insanity,  Health,  Degeneracy,  and  Poverty.  These 
subjects  are  clearly  discussed,  the  conclusions  of  scien- 
tific investigations  being  admirably  stated  and  graphi- 
cally described  by  many  charts  and  diagrams.  One 
of  these  charts  is  here  reproduced:  “A  62-Mile  Walking 
Match.”  Such  a campaign  of  temperance  publicity 
in  our  public  schools  means  the  near  downfall  of  the 
saloon  and  the  destruction  of  the  Paganism  of  Drink, 
which  has  for  so  many  ages  cursed  mankind. 

In  1873,  the  London  Temperance  Hos- 
Less  pital  was  founded,  for  the  treatment  of 

Hospitals  patients  without  alcohol.  The  management 
maintains  the  right  to  administer  alcohol 
when  thought  to  be  absolutely  necessarj%  but  this  has 
been  done,  so  far,  in  only  92  cases,  and  then  only  very 
small  quantities  were  used.  Its  founders  were,  at  the 
time,  somewhat  savagely  denounced  for  what  was  then 
considered  a policy  that  endangered  human  life.  In 
these  forty  years,  it  has  treated,  inside  its  walls,  about 
1,000  patients  a year  (1,542  in  the  year  ending  March, 
1912),  and  in  all  about  250,000  out-patients.  It  has 
had  a distinguished  medical  staff,  and  its  success  in 
the  treatment  of  all  kinds  of  diseases  and  all  sorts  of 
patients,  temperate  and  intemperate,  has  been  marked. 
Its  record  of  cures  in  pneumonia  has  been  the  highest 
of  any  London  hospital.  It  has  exerted  a profound 
influence  upon  the  medical  profession.  At  present, 
it  enjoys  the  confidence  of  all  the  medical  schools  of 
Great  Britain.  Speaking  in  1911  Dr.  Henry  T.  Butlin 
(President  of  the  Royal  College  of  Surgeons,  London) 
said:  “The  Temperance  Hospital  has  exercised  a verj’ 
great  influence  in  my  profession  here  in  London.” 
It  now  receives  grants  from  the  great  Hospital  Funds, 
that  established  by  King  Edward,  and  those  maintained 
[240] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


by  the  Railways.  Among  its  patrons  are  distinguished 
bishops,  noblemen,  authors,  statesmen,  and  scientists. 

The  changed  attitude  of  the  public  toward  this  hos- 
pital is  similar  to  the  change  which  has  recently  oc- 
curred in  the  great  hospitals  of  the  world  respecting 
the  use  of  alcohol  as  an  internal  medicine.  In  the  last 
few  years,  the  nine  leading  hospitals  of  Dublin  have 
gradually  cut  down  the  use  of  alcohol,  until  it  is  now 
only  one-seventh  what  it  formerly  was.  The  secretary 
of  the  National  Hospital  for  Consumptives,  Dublin, 
writes:  “Liquors  are  not  as  a rule  used  at  this  hospital.” 
The  hospitals  of  the  London  Metropolitan  Asylums 
Board  treat  about  30,000  patients  a year.  The  amount 
of  alcohol  used  as  an  internal  medicine  in  1909  was  less 
than  one  fourth  of  what  was  used  in  1902.  Many  of 
the  great  workhouse  infirmaries  in  England  have  prac- 
tically abandoned  the  use  of  alcohol  as  a medicine. 
That  at  West  Ham  spent  in  1904  $5,000.00  for  liquors; 
in  1907,  only  $200.00!  The  amount  at  Salisbury  fell 
from  $500.00  in  1897  to  $90.00  in  1905.  The  seven 
large  hospitals  of  London  use  less  than  one  quarter 
as  much  as  they  did  a generation  ago,  and  the 
decrease  constantly  continues.  The  following  state- 
ment, by  Prof.  Robert  Saundby,  M.  D.,  formerly  presi- 
dent of  the  British  Medical  Association,  is  significant: 
“In  1859  in  our  hospital  with  2,500  patients  and  staff  of 
60,  over  $4,000  were  spent  for  beer,  wine  and  spirits. 
Fifty  years  later  in  1909,  with  5,500  patients  and  a staff 
of  160  the  total  expenditure  for  alcoholic  drinks  was 
$955.  Instead  of  ordering  alcohol  in  the  way  of  years 
ago,  the  first  thing  we  now  think  of  is  to  knock  off 
alcohol  in  order  to  eliminate  a possible  complicating 
factor  in  all  sorts  of  diseases.” 

In  the  countries  of  Continental  Europe,  there  has 
been  a decrease  in  the  use  of  alcohol  as  an  internal  medi- 

[241] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


cine,  but  not  so  marked  as  in  the  British  Isles.  Prof. 
A.  Holitscher,  of  Karlsbad,  concludes  his  investigation 
on  this  point  wdth  the  statement  that  the  diminution 
in  the  past  dozen  years  ranges  from  30  to  50  per  cent. 
One  distinguished  authority  on  operative  surgery 
(University  of  Berne),  Prof.  Theodor  Kocher,  recently 
remarked:  “The  only  rational  use  of  alcohol  is  outside 
the  body!”  Prof.  Heinrich  Obersteiner,  M.  D.,  of 
Vienna,  recently  stated  in  London  (1913),  as  evidence 
of  the  trend  toward  abstinence  among  medical  men  in 
Austria,  that  at  a restaurant  in  Vienna  much  patron- 
ized by  doctors,  it  is  now  rare  to  see  a physician  drink- 
ing wine! 

In  America,  the  tendency  in  our  large  hospitals  is 
decidedly  downward.  Two  small  hospitals,  the  Red 
Cross,  in  New  York  City,  and  the  Frances  E.  Willard, 
Chicago,  do  not  use  alcohol  at  all  and  their  record  of 
mortality  is  lower  than  that  of  hospitals  in  general. 
In  the  Massachusetts  General  Hospital  the  amount 
spent  for  alcohol  dropped  from  46  cents  per  patient 
in  1897  to  13  cents  in  1906.  The  two  largest  hospitals 
in  the  United  States  are  the  Cook  County,  Chicago, 
and  The  Bellevue,  New  York  City.  The  amount  of 
all  liquors  used  in  the  latter  at  present  (1913)  is  about 
one  fifth  of  what  it  was  ten  years  ago,  in  1903.  The 
Cook  County  Hospital  presents  practically  the  same 
record.  In  other  hospitals,  like  the  Presfij-terian  Hos- 
pital of  New  York  City  and  the  Mercy  Hospital,  Chicago, 
alcohol  is  used  only  in  special  cases.  In  a census  of  over 
fifty  prominent  professors,  in  a dozen  leading  American 
medical  schools,  taken  to  discover  their  attitude  toward 
alcohol  as  a medicine,  over  half  reported  themselves 
as  opposed  to  its  use,  while  a majority  of  the  others 
advised  that  it  be  used  sparingly  with  great  care. 

The  following  language  may  seem  extreme  to  many. 

[242] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 

It  is,  however,  from  the  pen,  not  of  a “temperance 
fanatic,”  but  of  a distinguished  American  physician. 
Dr.  John  D.  Quackenbos,  Professor  in  Columbia 
University: 

“The  time  will  surely  come,  as  civilization  refines  and  knowledge 
advances,  when  the  occurrence  of  a contagious  disease  in  family  or 
school  will  be  regarded  as  a crime!  So  may  we  hope  that  in  the 
fullnessof  the  same  time,  the  unscrupulous  vender  who  deals  out  death 
to  his  victims  on  the  installment  plan  either  through  the  medium 
of  barroom  favorites,  attractive  nostrums,  or  cocaine-bearing  temp- 
erance drinks,  shall  be  adjudged  as  incontestably  a murderer  as  the 
poisoner  who  takes  the  life  of  his  fellow  with  a single  dose  of  cyanide 
or  the  footpad  who  kills  with  one  stiletto  thrust.”  (Psychology  of 
the  Drink  Habit,  Quarterly  Journal  of  Inebriety,  May,  1913). 

The  World-Victory  for  Total  Abstinence 

Present  En-  g™  means,  been  won.  But 

couragements  , , i. 

the  temperance  hosts  are  increasing  in 
number  and  advancing  along  the  entire  battle  line. 
Every  nation  shows  new  interest  in  the  cause  of  sobrie- 
ty, and  all  departments  of  human  thought  and  activity 
are  responding  to  the  call  to  battle  against  the  Paganism 
of  Drink.  The  Fourteenth  International  Congress  on 
Alcoholism  was  held  in  Milan,  Italy,  while  some  of  these 
papers  were  being  written  (Sept.,  1913).  Therefore, 
no  extended  references  to  it  are  here  possible.  In  it, 
44  countries  were  represented  by  1097  delegates,  a large 
proportion  having  been  officially  appointed.  Prof. 
Charles  Scanlon  (an  oflBcial  delegate  from  the  United 
States),  who  is  the  efiicient  secretary  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Board  of  Temperance,  writes  to  this  effect:  The 
general  sentiment  was  decidedly  for  stringent  laws  and 
total  abstinence.  When  a distinguished  woman  physi- 
cian of  Milan  advocated  the  “moderate”  use  of  light 
liquors,  the  delegates  (among  them  a large  number  of 

[243] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


doctors)  at  once  made  a general  and  vigorous  demonstra- 
tion of  disapproval! 

All  Protestant  Churches,  with  few  exceptions,  are 
earnestly  at  work  for  temperance,  and  they  with  their 
missions,  schools,  and  philanthropies,  are  the  mightiest 
single  power  for  good  in  the  world.  The  associated 
organizations,  the  Young  Men’s  Christian  Association, 
the  Salvation  Army,  the  Christian  Endeavor  societies, 
are  all  valiant  foes  of  Drink.  The  Catholic  Church, 
especially  in  the  United  States,  is  doing  noble  service 
in  this  cause:  its  Total  Abstinence  Union  is  indeed  a 
powerful  army  in  itself.  It  is  encouraging  to  read  in 
its  great  Encyclopedia,  recently  completed:  “Alcohol 
is  never  a food  in  any  sense,  be  the  quantity  large  or 
small,  but  always  a poison  in  health;  in  disease  it  is  a 
drug.  It  is  of  all  causes  the  most  frequent  source  of 
poverty,  unhappiness,  divorce,  suicide,  immorality, 
crime,  insanity,  disease,  and  death.” 

Fraternal  organizations  are  turning  more  and  more 
against  the  use  and  the  users  of  liquors,  the  tendency 
being  especially  strong  among  Odd  Fellows,  Masons, 
the  Knights  of  Pythias.  Indicative  of  this  changing 
attitude  are  these  words,  from  a leader  of  the  “Native 
Sons  of  the  Golden  West:”  “Instead  of  protecting 
the  liquor  trade  we  propose  to  protect  the  young  men 
of  California:  Our  wine  business  is  far  subordinate 
to  the  young  manhood  of  our  state!” 

The  Post  Office  excludes  all  liquors  from  the  Parcel 
Post,  putting  them  under  the  ban  of  illegitimate  busi- 
ness. Express  companies  are  conforming  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Webb  Law  and  so  ceasing  to  be  longer  a 
party  to  the  nullification  of  state  laws.  Railroads  now 
refuse  to  ship  liquors  into  prohibition  territor5^  While 
it  is  estimated  that  more  than  a million  dollars  will  be 
lost  annually,  in  this  way,  to  the  lines  operating  out  of 

[244] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


Chicago,  the  managers  approve  the  Law,  as  it  will  lead 
to  both  moral  and  industrial  improvements  where 
enforced. 

All  friends  of  temperance  are  made  glad  that  the 
Democratic  administration  at  Washington  throws  the 
mighty  influence  of  its  example  on  the  side  of  absti- 
nence. It  is  a most  encouraging  fact  that  at  the  last 
“ White  House  ” wedding.  President  and  Mrs.  Woodrow 
Wilson  served  no  liquors.  The  wife  of  the  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Commons  (Hon.  T.  S.  Sproule,  M.  D.), 
Ottawa,  Canada,  excludes  intoxicants  from  all  social 
functions  over  which  she  presides.  At  the  end  of  his 
tour  of  our  country,  as  our  nation’s  guest,  it  was  found 
that  the  stock  of  liquors  placed  in  the  Pullman  car,  in 
which  a distinguished  South  American  Statesman 
traveled,  had  not  been  touched:  a notable  evidence 
that  a new  day  is  dawning.  When  that  new  day  has 
fully  arrived,  our  Federal  Government  will  cease  to  set 
the  shameful  example  of  providing  guests  with  liquors 
at  the  public  expense! 

All  over  the  world,  the  pupils  in  public  schools  are 
receiving  scientific  instruction  respecting  the  ruinous 
influence  of  liquors  upon  human  life.  Alcohol  exhibits 
at  fairs  and  in  shop  windows  aid  this  education  of  the 
rising  generation  in  temperance.  From  our  great 
scientific  laboratories,  the  severest  condemnations  of 
alcohol  are  broadcasted  over  the  earth.  A rapidly 
lengthening  list  of  magazines  and  newspapers  exclude 
all  liquor  advertisements  and  no  longer  demoralize 
young  and  old  by  false  and  harmful  statements  suggest- 
ive of  evil. 

The  governments  of  many  countries  are  facing  the 
Drink  Problem  with  new  courage  and  effectiveness, 
and  everywhere  the  tendency  of  legislation  is  toward 
severer  restrictions.  A rising  tide  of  prohibition 

[245] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


sentiment  is  found  everywhere.  In  Sweden,  500,000 
organized  abstainers;  in  Norway,  250,000;  in  Denmark, 
200,000 ; in  Germany,  250,000,  where  a monster  petition 
signed  by  500,000  men  and  women  asking  for  a local 
option  law  has  just  been  presented  to  the  Reichstag; 
in  Switzerland,  90,000,  a fifteen  fold  increase  in  twenty 
years;  in  Spain,  225  doctors  in  1910  signed  a Declara- 
tion against  alcohol;  in  Portugal  over  6,000  mothers 
demanding  restrictive  laws  of  Senate  and  Chamber; 
on  Nov.  18, 1913,  M.  Siegfried  presented  to  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  Paris,  a petition  signed  by  222,072  French 
women,  asking  for  an  immediate  lessening  of  the  num- 
ber of  drink  shops  in  the  nation;  in  Italy  a surprising 
growth  of  temperance  sentiment  among  doctors  and 
educators.  In  our  own  nation,  the  Anti-Saloon  League 
doing  monumental  work  against  the  Liquor  Traffic; 
in  many  lands,  the  Good  Templars  courageously  oppos- 
ing the  common  foe;  in  the  British  Isles,  the  Rechabites 
and  Sons  of  Temperance,  numbering  now  a half  million 
members  (doubled  in  the  last  ten  years),  are  fighting  the 
good  fight  along  many  lines.  The  Year  Book  (1913) 
of  the  United  Kingdom  Alliance  (Manchester,  England), 
— a most  effective  organization, — gives  the  names  of 
nearly  600  temperance  organizations,  in  26  different 
countries,  15  being  in  Germany. 

One  of  the  most  promising  temperance  movements 
of  the  day  is  that  among  University  professors  and 
students  in  Europe,  particularly  in  Germany,  who  have 
happily  been  called,  “warriors  in  the  army  of  light.” 
A movement  little  more  than  ten  years  old;  and  yet,  the 
International  Bureau  at  Zurich  reports  27,000  members! 
Many  students  in  Germany,  in  preaching  and  prac- 
ticing total  abstinence,  have  shown  heroic  elements 
comparable  to  those  of  the  martyr  of  old,  cheerfully 
facing  academic  obloquy,  loss  of  scholastic  honors, 

[ 246] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


and  parental  censure,  in  cases  amounting  to  disinheri- 
tance! Unfortunately,  we  have  no  such  movement,  as 
yet,  among  American  students. 

The  whole  horizon  is  bright  with  promise; 
Winning  jn  Russia  half  a million  people  attending 
Sj'stinence”'^  Weekly  temperance  lectures,  and  at  Christ- 
mas, 1909,  the  first  anti-alcohol  Congress 
met  in  St.  Petersburg  with  over  500  delegates  present. 
Ardent  appeals  for  abstinence  begin  to  be  heard  in  the 
Duma  of  Russia;  school  teachers  are  educating  their 
pupils  respecting  the  evils  of  Drink;  and  the  “Synod” 
has  recently  called  bishops  and  priests  of  the  Greek 
Church  to  battle  earnestly  against  alcoholism.  (See 
“The  Alcohol  Problem  in  Russia.”  By  Rev.  I. 
Serishev,  Sergolgin,  Siberia).  Iceland  and  Japan, 
Bulgaria  and  Mexico,  joining  hands  in  victories  for 
sobriety.  A hundred  thousand  Good  Templars  in 
Germany,  where  lawyers  and  doctors,  professors  and 
students,  are  declaring  for  total  abstinence;  at  Easter, 
1913,  1,400  delegates  met  at  Hamburg  to  plan  for  the 
temperance  education  of  the  young;  while  the  Kaiser 
is  pleading  with  increasing  earnestness  for  sobriety. 
Two  million  employees  in  our  nation  under  orders  to 
avoid  Drink;  half  of  our  population  and  two  thirds  of 
our  territory  under  stringent  restrictions;  the  Catholic 
Church  in  America,  as  has  been  stated,  taking  the  most 
advanced  grounds  for  temperance — Cardinal  Gibbons 
recently  declaring  that  “the  agitation  is  getting  a 
foothold  which  eventually  will  mean  widespread  pro- 
hibition.” In  Sweden  12,000  enthusiastic  students 
pledged  to  total  abstinence;  and  in  Denmark  the  names 
of  over  half  the  adult  population  recently  put  on  a 
petition  for  restrictive  legislation.  The  economists 
and  scientists  in  France,  Switzerland,  Austria,  and 
Hungary  loud  in  warnings  against  alcohol.  Some 

[247] 


SHALL  I DRINK? 


1,500  periodicals  throughout  the  world  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  cause.  No  liquors  allowed  in  working 
men’s  clubs  in  Finland;  while  both  in  Great  Britain  and 
America,  prominent  Labor  leaders  are  strongly  against 
the  Liquor  Trade.  The  Woman’s  Christian  Temper- 
ance Union  binding  the  continents  and  the  isles  of 
the  sea  in  the  web  of  its  white  ribbon! 

Whatever  our  personal  attitude  to  the  policy  of  pro- 
hibition may  be,  we  must  be  deeply  impressed  by  the 
array  of  facts  presented  by  Mr.  Guy  Hayler,  in  his  new 
book — Prohibition  Advance  in  All  Lands  (1913) — which 
shows  the  deepening  conviction  of  the  world  that  the 
Drink  Problem  is  urgent  and  important  and  that  it 
must  be  faced  and  solved. 

An  increasing  number  of  intelligent  and  conscientious 
men  and  women,  all  over  the  world,  are  coming  to  see 
eye  to  eye,  respecting  certain  basic  principles:  That 
the  destruction  of  the  Drink  Curse  is  fundamental, — 
preliminary  to  all  other  reforms.  That  statutes  re- 
stricting the  use  of  alcohol  favor  freedom  and  fortune. 
That  to  conquer  the  Drink  Habit  is  to  conserve  the 
greatest  of  our  national  resources — manhood.  That 
total  abstinence  is  the  highway  of  human  progress. 
That  drinking  liquor  is  the  surrender  of  personal  inde- 
pendence. That  sobriety  is  the  perfection  of  individual 
liberty  and  civic  freedom.  That  indifference  to  the 
temperance  cause  is  supreme  disloyalty  to  Christ. 
That  neutrality  toward  the  saloon  is  treason  to  human- 
ity. That  in  the  work  of  social  betterment  all  socialistic 
programs  are  insignificant  beside  the  victory  for  tem- 
perance, which  would  destroy  the  chief  sources  of  poverty 
while  it  would  improve  the  general  character  of  human 
life.  That  a vote  against  whisky  is  a master-stroke 
for  civilization  and  Christianity.  That,  as  Dr 
Bretislav  Foustka,  of  the  University  of  Prague,  declares. 

[248] 


SIGNS  OF  PROMISE 


“One  of  the  most  important  movements  in  the  life  and 
civilization  of  all  nations,  is  the  struggle  for  the  sobriety 
of  the  people.  ...  In  all  the  ramifications  of 
thought, feeling,  and  living,  it  is  not  a negative  quantity. 
Abstinence  offers  the  broadest  possible  road  for  prog- 
ress.” 

Surely,  the  dayspring  from  on  high  is  at  hand;  the 
signs  of  promise  multiply;  the  voices  of  Truth  and  Love 
call  all  the  friends  of  Humanity  to  battle  for  the  com- 
plete overthrow  of  the  Drink  Superstition;  and  soon 
all  the  sons  of  God  shall  unite  in  the  glad  song  of  victory 
for  Temperance. 


[249] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 


Page 

Abel,  Prof.  John  J.;  M.  D.;  Johns  Hopkins  University 16,  83 

Addams,  Jane;  Hull  House,  Chicago 26 

Alverstone,  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England 60 

Amundsen,  Captain  Roald;  Antarctic  Explorer 171 

Antonini,  Dr.  Giuseppe;  Italian  Specialist  on  Insanity.  Quota- 
tion from  Article  in  “Archivio  di  Psichiatria.” 162 

Aschaffenburg,  Prof.  Gustav,  M.  D.;  Cologne.  Eminent  Ger- 
man Scientist 82 

Atwater,  Prof.  W.  O.;  Long  at  Wesleyan  University.  Food- 
Value  of  Alcohol:  “Physiological  Aspects  of  the  Liquor 

Problem.” 169 

Barlow,  Sir  Thomas,  M.  D.;  President  Royal  College  of  Physi- 
cians, London 16,  49,  50 

Barnardo,  Dr.  Thomas  J.;  Friend  of  London  Waifs  (d.  1905) ....  33 

Barr,  Sir  James,  M.  D.;  Royal  Infirmary,  Liverpool.  Recently 

President,  British  Medical  Association 160 

Barrows,  Dr.  Samuel  J.;  Late  President,  International  Prison 

Commission 148, 180 

Bashford,  Rev.  Dr.  James  W.;  Bishop  Methodist  Episcopal 

Church,  China 195 

Bayer,  Mr.  E.;  Austrian  Educator,  Vienna 114 

Beresford,  Admiral  Lord  Charles;  British  Navy 233 

Bertillon,  Dr.  Jacques;  Chief  Bureau  Municipal  Statistics,  Paris . . 38 

Bingham,  William;  Manager  “Sceptre  Life”  (Ins.  Co.),  London  239 
Birtwell,  Charles  W.;  General  Secretary  Massachusetts  Sex  Edu- 
cation Society 96 

Blocher,  Dr.  H.  Basel;  Leader  Swiss  Soeial  Democrats 165 

Booth,  Rt.  Hon.  Charles;  Author  “Labor  and  Life  of  the 

People.” 69 

Bourgeois,  M.  Leon;  Eminent  French  Statesman 216 

Boy,  Lieut.  Bengt;  Swedish  Army 233 

Broadbent,  Sir  William,  M.  D.;  St.  Mary’s  Hospital,  London 
(1865-1896).  Formerly  Physician  to  King  Edward  VII ....  112 
Brouardel,  Prof.  Paul  C.  H.;  Eminent  Authority  on  Hygiene. 

Dean  Faculty  of  Medicine  (d.  1906),  University  of  Paris. . 38 

Brown,  Dr.  Edward  Vipont,  M.  D.;  Distinguished  Physician, 

Manchester,  England 14 

Bunge,  Prof.  Gustav  von,  M.  D.;  University  of  Basel.  Tem- 
perance Pioneer  among  German  Scientists 54,  165 

[251] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 


Burbank,  Luther;  Specialist  in  Plant  Culture 114 

Burns,  Et.  Hon.  John,  M.  P.;  President  Government  Board.  .31,  211 
Butlin,  Dr.  Henry  T.;  President  Royal  College  of  Surgeons, 

London 240 

Cabot,  Prof.  Richard  C.,  M.  D.;  Harvard  University 229 

Caine,  Mr.  Hall;  The  Novelist 160 

Carpenter,  Prof.  William  B.;  M.  D.;  Eminent  Physiologist. 
President  British  Association  for  Advancement  of  Science 

(1872) 11,  85 

Chalmers,  Dr.  A.  K.;  M.  D.;  Medical  Officer  of  Health,  Glasgow  136 
Chancellor,  Henry  G.;  Member  of  Parliament  from  London ... . 80 

Charming,  William  Ellery;  Address  on  Temperance,  1837 96 

Chappie,  Dr.  W.  A.;  M.  P.;  Formerly  Physician  to  Wellington 

Hospital,  N.  Z 8 

Choate,  Hon.  Joseph  H.;  U.  S.  Ambassador  to  Great  Britain 

(1899-1905) 196 

Clemenceau,  Hon.  Georges;  Former  Premier  French  Republic.  . 120 
Clouston,  Sir  Thomas  S.;  M.  D.;  President  Royal  College  of 

Physicians  (1903),  Edinburgh 15 

Crosby,  Sir  Thomas  B.;  M.  D.;  St.  Thomas  Hospital,  London. 

Lord  Mayor  of  London,  1912 Ill 

Crothers,  Dr.  Thomas  D.;  M.  D.;  Walnut  Lodge  Hospital, 

Hartford,  Conn VHL,  78 

Crown  Prince  of  Sweden.  Quotation  from  Notable  Address ....  41 

Darling,  Sir  Charles  J.;  Judge  King’s  Bench  (Criminal  Court). . 60 

Darwin,  Charles;  Quotation  respecting  the  Effects  of  Drink.  ..  . 26 

Davis,  Prof.  C.  R.;  University  of  North  Dakota 106 

Demme,  Prof.  Rudolph,  M.  D.;  At  Jenner  Hospital  for  Children, 

Berne,  for  nearly  30  years 96, 101 

Devine,  Dr.  Edward  T.;  Eminent  Social  Worker.  Author, 

“ Misery  and  its  Causes.” 44 

Dubois,  Prof.  Paul;  Berne,  Switzerland 169 

Dugdale,  Richard  L.;  Author,  “The  Jukes.” 64 

Dukes,  Dr.  Clement;  Physieian  to  Rugby  School,  England 141 

Durning-Lawrence,  Sir  Edwin;  London  Capitalist  and  Scholar  164 

Edison,  Thomas  A.;  The  Great  Inventor 167 

Eklund,  Hon.  Oskar;  Member  Swedish  Parliament  from  Stock- 
holm   209 

Eliot,  Charles  W.;  President  Emeritus  Harvard  University 

134,  142,  185 

Ennis,  Prof.  August;  University  of  Heidleberg 218 

Falcioni,  Hon.  H.  E.;  Secretarj'  of  State,  Italy 162 

Farnam,  Prof.  Henry  W.;  Yale  University 63 

Fisher,  Prof.  Irving;  Yale  University.  Leader  in  National 

Health  Movement 83 

Fisk,  Dr.  Eugene  L.;  M.  D.;  Medical  Director,  Postal  Life 

Insurance  Company 88 

Flinders-Petrie,  Prof.  W’m.  M.;  University  College,  London. .. . 150 

[252] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 


Forel,  Prof.  August;  Long  at  University  of  Zurich 213 

Foustka,  Prof.  Bretislav,  M.  D.;  Chair  of  Sociology,  University 

of  Prague 248 

Gemmill,  Hon.  William  N.;  Judge  of  Court  of  Domestic  Rela- 
tions, Chicago 61 

Gladstone,  Rt.  Hon.  William  E.;  Quotation  in  reference  to 

Revenue 76 

Gordon,  Ernest;  Author,  Anti-Alcohol  Movement  in  Europe.” 

149,  172,  209 

Gorell,  Lord  (Rt.  Hon.  John) ; Judge  Probate  and  Divorce 

Court,  England 60 

Gouge,  Mr.  H.  Dillon;  Public  Actuary,  South  Australia 85 

Gould,  Sir  Alfred  Pearce,  M.  D.;  Dean  Medical  Faculty,  London 

University 216 

Graeter,  Dr.  Karl;  Basel,  Switzerland 100 

Grant,  Frederick  D.;  General  U.  S.  Army 235 

Green,  Prof.  Thomas  H.;  For  many  years  a leader  at  Oxford 

University 183 

Grenfell,  Sir  Francis;  General  in  British  Army 233 

Grenfell,  Dr.  Wilfred  T.;  M.  D.;  The  Apostle  to  Labrador. . . 54 

Gruber,  Prof.  Max  von;  President  Royal  Hygienic  Institution 

Munich 70,  165 

Hall,  Prof.  Winfield  S.;  M.  D.;  Dean  Medical  Faculty,  North- 
western University,  Chicago 100 

Hanly,  Hon.  J.  Frank,  Formerly  Governor  of  Indiana  (1905- 

1909) 85 

Hayler,  Mr.  Guy.  Author,  “Prohibition  Advance  in  all  Lands”  248 
Helenius-Seppala,  Dr.  Matti,  Helsingfors.  Member  Finnish  Par- 
liament   210 

Henschen,  Prof.  S.  E.;  University  of  Stockholm.  Specialist  in 

Therapeutics 39 

Heuman,  Rev.  Dr.  S.;  Chaplain  to  the  King.  Stockholm 212 

Hodge,  Prof.  Clifton  F.;  Clark  University 100 

Holitscher,  Dr.  Arnold,  M.  D.;  German  Specialist,  Karlsbad  170,  242 

Hoppe,  Dr.  Hugo;  Nerve  Specialist,  Konigsberg,  Germany 165 

Horsley,  Sir  Victor,  M.  D.;  Consulting  Surgeon,  University  Col- 


Howe,  Dr.  Samuel  G.;  Educator  of  the  Blind 103 

Hugo,  George  W.;  Wholesale  Liquor  Dealer 201 

Hunt,  Dr. ‘Reid,  M.  D.;  U.  S.  Hygienic  Laboratory,  Washington  219 

Ireland,  Archbishop  John;  St.  Paul,  Minnesota 160 

Jacquet,  Dr.  Lucien,  M.  D.;  St.  Antoine  Hospital,  Paris 120 

Jarvis,  J.  A.;  Famous  English  Swimmer 82 

Jellicoe,  Sir  J.  R.;  Admiral  in  British  Navy 232 

Jensen,  Prof.  Lars  O.;  Bergen,  Norway 213 

Jones,  Rev.  Dr.  Jenkin  Lloyd;  Abraham  Lincoln  Centre,  Chicago  54 
Jordan,  President  David  Starr,  Leland  Stanford  University. ...  91 

[253] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 


Kassowitz  (d.  1913),  Prof.  Max;  University  of  Vienna.  Emi- 
nent Specialist  on  Diseases  of  Children 169 

Kelly,  Howard  A.;  M.D.;  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Specialist 

in  Use  of  Radium 160 

Knopf,  Prof.  S.  Adolphus,  M.  D.;  New  York  Post  Graduate 

Medical  School 39 

Koch,  Prof.  G.  H.  von;  Eminent  Swedish  Sociologist 213 

Kocher,  Prof.  Theodor;  University  of  Berne 242 

Kogler,  Herr  Karl;  Austrian  Scientist,  Vienna 223 


Kraepelin,  Prof.  Emil;  M.  D.;  University  of  Munich.  Pio- 
neer Investigator  of  Psychological  Effects  of  Alcohol.  VIIL,  20,  165 
Laitinen,  Prof.  Taav,  M.  D.;  University  of  Helsingfors,  Finland 

97,  104 

Lawson,  Sir  Wilfrid,  M.  P 180 

Lejeune,  M.  Jules;  Late  Belgian  Minister  of  Justice  (d.  1910) 

86,  163 

Leonhart,  Johannes,  M.  D.;  German  Scientist;  Kiel 166 

Lichtenberg,  Dr.  Hugo,  Charlottenburg,  Germany 106 

Lincoln,  Abraham.  Temperance  Address  (Feb.  22,  1842) 

Quoted 26,78 

Ljungren,  Prof.  August,  Eminent  Scandinavian  Temperance 

Advocate 212 

Lloyd-George,  Rt.  Hon.  David,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. . . 31, 84 
Logan,  Hon.  James;  No-License  Mayor  of  Worcester  (1908- 

1910),  Mass 199 

Lombroso.  Prof.  Cesare,  Celebrated  Italian  Criminologist 161 

Longdon,  John;  Oxford  University  Diploma  in  Economics 76 

Lorebum,  Lord  (Sir  Robert  Reid);  Lord  Chancellor  of  England 

(1910) _ 60 

Lorenz,  Prof.  Adolf,  M.  D.;  Imperial  Hospital,  Vienna 160 

Luther,  Martin;  Quotation  from  “Table  Talk” 76 

Luzzatti,  Hon.  Luigi;  Recently  Prime  Minister  of  Italy 161 

Mack,  Connie;  Manager  of  Philadelphia  “Athletics” 239 

McKelway,  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  J.;  Secretary,  National  Child 

Labor  Committee  (For  Southern  States) 29,  32 

Magwood,  Robert  H.;  Secretary  No-License  League  (Mass.). . 139 
Mahaim,  Prof.  Albert,  M.  D.;  University  of  Liege.  Also  Pro- 
fessor Extraordinary,  University  of  Lausanne 167 

Masaryk,  Prof.  T.  G.;  IJniversity  of  Prague 96 

Mason,  Dr.  L.  D.,  Specialist  on  Inebriety,  Brookljm,  N.  Y 112 

Mans,  Colonel  L.  Merv’in,  M.  D.;  Chief  Surgeon,  Eastern  Dh*i- 

sion,  U.  S.  A 43,238 

Metchrukoff,  Prof.  Elie,  Director,  Pasteur  Institute,  Paris 38 

Meyers,  Hon.  William  J.;  Statistician,  U.  S.  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission 200 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  Reference  to  “On  Liberty” 184 

Mirman,  M.  Leon;  Director  Public  Hygiene,  Paris 38 

Mitchell,  John;  Champion  of  Labor,  Address,  Feb.  22, 1910. ...  96 


[254] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Morrow,  Dr.  Prince  A.;  M.  D.;  Bellevue  Hospital  Medical  Col- 
lege, New  York  City 54 

Munsterberg,  Prof.  Hugo;  Harvard  University 146 

Nansen,  Fridtjof,  Arctic  Explorer 170 

Nettlefold,  John  S.,  Chairman  Housing  Committee,  Birmingham 

City  Council,  England 34 

Newton,  John,  Parliamentary  Agent,  United  Kingdom  Alliance 

49,  62,  89 

Obersteiner,  Prof.  Heinrich,  M.  D.;  University  of  Vienna 242 

Osier,  Sir  William,  M.  D.;  Regius  Professor  of  Medicine;  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford 38 

Parkes,  Dr.  Edmund  A.;  M.  D.;  Founder  Science  of  Modem 
Hygiene.  Long  Professor,  Army  Medical  School,  Netley, 

England  (d.  1876) 82 

Patten,  Prof.  Simon  N.;  University  of  Pennsylvania 142 

Pearson,  Prof.  Karl;  Gallon  Laboratory  for  Eugenics,  London.  . 103 
Peterson,  Prof.  Frederick,  M.  D.;  Columbia  University . . 87,  216,  229 
Pfaff,  Dr.  W.;  German  Specialist;  Distingusihed  Convert  to 

Total  Abstinence 10 

Phelps,  Edward  B.,  Editor  American  Underwriter  Magazine.  .40,  230 
Pitman,  Judge  Robert  C.;  Author,  “Alcohol  and  the  State”. .. . 180 

Plauzoles,  Dr.  Sicard;  Eminent  French  Scientist 60 

Pratt,  Edwin  A.;  Author,  “Temperance  and  Licensing  in 

Sweden” 209 

Pugh,  Mr.  Edwin;  Quotation  from,  “The  Soul  of  the  Drunkard”  143 

Quackenbos,  Prof.  John  D.,  M.  D.;  Columbia  University 243 

Quensel,  Heinrich;  German  Councilor.  Author,  “ Der  Alkohol ” 

(Berlin,  1909) Ill 

Rade,  Prof.  Martin,  University  of  Marburg 148 

Rankin,  Dr.  W.  S.;  Secretary  State  Board  of  Health,  North 

Carolina 238 

Rauschenbusch,  Prof.  Walter;  University  of  Rochester.  Author, 

“Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis” 148 

Reinach,  M.  Joseph;  Member  House  of  Deputies,  France. 

Author,  “Contre  I’Alcoolisme” 26 

Richardson,  Sir  Benjamin  Ward;  Pioneer  in  Scientific  Temper- 
ance (d.  1896).  Fellow  Royal  College  of  Physicians  (London)  - 

17,  74 

Roberts,  Field  Marshal,  Frederick  S.,  Earl  of  Kandahar 231 

Rosanoff,  Dr.  A.  J.;  M.  D.;  Physician  to  King’s  Park  State  Hos- 
pital, Long  Island,  N.  Y 169 

Rosanoff,  Prof.  M.  A.;  Director  Chemical  Laboratory,  Clark 

University,  Worcester,  Mass 169 

Saleeby,  Dr.  Caleb  W’.;  M.  D.;  Author,  “ Parenthood  and  Race 
Culture.”  Formerly  Physician  in  Royal  Infirmary,  Edin- 
burgh   31, 104 

Salzlechner,  Prof.  Franz;  Prominent  Austrian  Educator 101 


[255] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 


Saundby,  Prof.  Robert,  M.  D.;  Recently  President;  British  Med- 
ical Association 241 

Scanlon,  Prof.  Charles;  Secretary  Board  of  Temperance,  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  America 24.3 

Scharffenberg,  Dr.  Johan;  Norwegian  Specialist  on  Insanity ... . 208 

Schnyder,  Dr.  L.;  M.  D.;  Berne,  Switzerland 1C9 

Schweighofer,  Dr.  Josef,  M.  D.;  Long  Superintendent  Insane 

Hospital,  Salzburg,  Austria 100 

Sedgwick,  Prof.  Wm.  T.;  Mass.  Institute  of  Technology,  Boston  26 
Serishev,  Rev.  I.,  Sergolgin,  Siberia;  Russian  Temperance  Ad- 
vocate   247 

Siegfried,  M.  Jules;  Member  House  of  Deputies,  France.  Ar- 
dent advocate  of  Temperance  Legislation 246 

Simpson,  Sir  Alexander  R.;  M.D.;  University  of  Edinburgh. .. . 112 

Smith,  Prof.  August;  University  of  Heidelberg 115 

Sproule,  Hon.  T.  S.;  M.  D.;  Speaker  House  of  Commons,  Canada  245 

Staaff,  Hon.  Karl;  Prime  Minister  of  Sweden 212 

Starke,  Dr.  J.;  Author,  “Alcohol;  the  Sanction  of  its  Use” 147 

Stehr,  Alfred  H.;  M.  D.,  Wiesbaden,  Germany.  Doctorate  in 

Political  Economy 237 

Stetzle,  Charles;  Formerly  Superintendent  Bureau  of  Social 

Service,  Presbyterian  Church  of  America 76,  80 

Stoddard,  Cora  Frances;  Scientihc  Temperance  Federation 

(Boston) 229,239 

Stout,  Sir  Robert;  Chief  Justice,  New  Zealand 49 

Strehler,  Dr.  B.;  German  Scientist,  Neisse.  Quotation  from 

Notable  Addresses  made  at  Berlin 166 

Strong,  Sir  Vezey;  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  1911 26,  73 

Struempell,  Prof.  Adolf  von;  University  of  Leipzig 166 

Sturge,  Dr.  Mary  D.;  M.  D.;  Physician  to  Midland  Hospital 

for  W'omen,  Birmingham VIII 

Sullivan,  Dr.  W.  C.;  M.  D.;  Medical  Officer,  Prison  Service, 

Great  Britain 101 

Taft,  William  H.;  Address  on  Temperance  quoted 142 

Tilton,  Mrs.  Elizabeth;  Manager  Temperance  Poster  Campaign 

(Mass.) 134 

Tolman,  Dr.  William  H.;  Director  Museum  of  Safety  (New 

York  City) _. 235 

Treves,  Sir  Frederick,  M.  D.;  Consulting  Surgeon,  London 

Hospital 137 

Van  Cise,  Joel  G.;  Actuary  for  “Equitable  Life” 82,  230 

Van  Fleet,  Hon.  William  C.;  Judge  U.  S.  District  Court 159 

Vogt,  Prof.  Ragnar,  University  of  Christiania 115 

Warner,  Harry  S.;  Author,  “Social  Welfare  and  the  Liquor 

Problem” 172 

Washington,  Dr.  Booker  T.;  President,  Tuskegee  Institute 180 

Waugh,  Dr.  William  F.;  M.D.;  Dean  Bennett  Medical  College, 
Chicago Ill 


[256] 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 


Wavrinsky,  Hon.  Edvard;  Member  Swedish  Parliament 213 

Webster,  Dr.  George  W.;  M.  D.;  President  Illinois  State  Board 

of  Health 48 

Weichselbaum,  Prof.  Anton;  Rector  (President),  University  of 

Vienna 39 

Westergaard,  Prof.  Harald;  University  of  Copenhagen.  Eminent 

Authority  on  Statistics 208 

Whittaker,  Sir  Thomas  P.;  M.P.;  Manager,  “United  Kingdom” 

(Life  Ins.  Co.),  London 33,76, 104, 106 

Wiley,  Dr.  Harvey  N.,  M.  D.;  Chief  Chemist  U.  S.  Department 

of  Agriculture  (1883-1910) VIII 

Willard,  Frances  E.;  Quotation  respecting  Drink  and  Poverty, 

70,  71,  216 

William,  Emperor  of  Germany;  Quotation  from  Dedication 

Address;  Naval  Academy  at  Miirvik,  1910 54, 172 

Williams,  Dr.  Henry  S.;  M.  D.;  Formerly  Superintendent  Ran- 
dall’s Island  Hospital 84, 102 

Wolseley,  Lord  (Garnet  Joseph),  Field  Marshal.  Testimony  re- 
specting Drink  and  the  British  Army 26,  234 

Woodhead,  Prof.  G.  Sims,  M.  D.;  University  of  Cambridge. . .16,18 
Wu,  Dr.  Lien-Teh,  Peking;  Eminent  Chinese  Physician 195 


[257] 


Date  Due 

DeclT"^/ 

Q_.-. 

pc' 

CARkfo 

. 

1?8  C948S  378  a 

.Cro-OieT, _ _ _ .. 

DATE  , \,0  “ ISSUED  TO 



178  C948S 


378  A 


